If you are a follower of politics, I am sure you
have watched or heard a variety of political debates and interviews where the
interviewer or reporter failed to ask certain questions that you felt were
relevant. Me too!
For example, the other day I heard (and eventually
confirmed with online research), that current New Jersey Governor Chris
Christie, previously U.S. Attorney, prosecuted Jared Kushner’s dad, Jared Kushner
being Donald Trump’s son-in-law. Remember, Christie was a Trump competitor for
the Republican nomination for president before becoming a Trump “deer in the
headlights” supporter, campaign advisor, and potential VP candidate. Yet, for
the hundreds of hours of debates and political broadcasts I watched, and
newspaper articles I read, there were no questions for either Christie or Trump
pertaining to this issue, nor were there questions for Kushner or his wife,
Trump’s daughter Ivanka. It certainly appears relevant to me if one competitor
for the presidency had prosecuted the father of the son-in-law of another
competitor.
Now, with the beginning of the Republican
Convention to nominate Trump for president, there is a relevant question that
has yet to be asked of Mr. Trump, and that is, why neither of his sons
volunteered for the military after 9/11? Based on age, Trump’s oldest son would
have been eligible to join the military in 2001 while his second oldest son
would have been eligible within a couple years of 9/11 during the U.S. surge of
volunteers occurring subsequent to 9/11.
This question has risen to the level of germane
because of the bluster, patriotic fervor and hyperbolic self-promotion of Trump
campaign rhetoric, as illustrated by the following.
First, there is Trump’s identification as a New
York symbol, and as a New Yorker, more directly affected by the 9/11 attacks.
Second, Trump consistently states how much he loves the military and the vets
(his charitable ventures notwithstanding). Third, Trump consistently asks the
public to believe his claim (not plan)
that he is the only one who can lead the military and defeat the terrorists and
ISIS while other won’t do such, or have not done so in the past. Last, during
his NRA speech and during other interviews, and without being prompted, Trump
made an issue and bragged about the knowledge and skill that his sons have with
guns, their longtime membership in the NRA, and their hunting and marksmanship
skills.
In the context of the foregoing, you have the emotional
tie to New York and 9/11, you have the bluster and rhetoric of loving the
military and vets and being the only one to have a plan to lead the military to
defeat terrorism and ISIS, and you have the unprompted references to the love
of guns and hunting and shooting skills that Trump’s sons have. So, how come no
motivation or desire by the Trump boys (daddy was too old for service) to
volunteer for the “beloved” military where they could apply their gun and hunting
skills to defeat terrorists who were involved with the 9/11 attacks?
So reporters, please ask the question. It might be
that a partial answer is hidden in the fact that while the war against
terrorism was continuing in 2011 with U.S. military lives at risk on various
fronts, and a plan to capture and/or kill Bin-laden evolved in the
Trump-despised Obama White House, the Trump boys opted to go big-game hunting
in Africa. Is the “love” of the military and vets, the desire to get the
terrorists, and the love of hunting more satisfied on a safari, or serving your
country?
Friday, November 2, 2012
REPUBLICANS AND ISRAEL, MAYBE: REPUBLICANS AND JEWS, NOT SO MUCH!
There has been some mention during the 2012 presidential campaigns that Republicans have attempted to make inroads into reducing the 70-75 percent Jewish vote that Democrats usually receive. Behind this thesis is the Republican generated myth that they have a stronger position pertaining to the issue of Israel, and that making that argument could result in attracting certain Jewish voters to the Republican side.
Of course, in reality, the Republicans do not have a stronger position pertaining to the issue of Israel than the Democrats and President Obama, where the record shows the provisions of more support and aid to Israel than any prior administration. The Republicans, as demonstrated by Mitt Romney during the debate of foreign policy, do not have any clear policy differences with the Democrats and Obama when it comes to Israel. In essence, there appears to be no real issue here.
What should be more important to Jewish voters, and something that has not received adequate attention from the media or the Democratic campaign strategists, is the demonstration by the Republican party of a pattern of insensitivity, disrespect, neglect and disdain of American interests and values of Jews. This contention is supported by a broad scope of evidence that includes the following.
Part of the evidence consists of the beliefs of conservative Republican advocates like Pastor Hagee and his ilk who believe Hitler was God’s agent to get the Jews to go to Israel. Additional evidence consists of the comments of various Tea Party citizens and elected officials, like Republican Tea Party Congressman West of Florida who have used Nazi and Hitlerian epithets in referencing President Obama and/or Democrats.
In the same light, we have newly crowned “holocaust historian,” Republican candidate Joe the Plumber (remember him?), speculating that any gun control in the America would be bad as evidenced by the gun control that occurred in Germany and allegedly contributed to the holocaust.
Further evidence consists of all the preaching of the Republican presidential primary candidates, including Romney, that Jesus had messaged them to run for president or that they were the best candidate to bring the teachings of Jesus and Christian interpretations of the bible to the White House. Paul Ryan, Republican VP nominee, clearly stated that his Catholic faith shaped his proposed government budget priorities. And, the Republicans in the Texas State House started a movement to remove their fellow Republican Speaker because he was Jewish and not a Christian.
From a more direct political standpoint, the facts show that Romney has stated that his model Supreme Court judge would be like a Roberts, an Alito, a Thomas or a Scalia.
Of the three Supreme Court judges currently serving who are Jewish, no kind words from Romney or Republicans. This coincides with the fact that Republicans have not appointed a Jewish judge to the Supreme Court since the term of Herbert Hoover.
Republican spokesperson Pat Buchanan has bemoaned the fact that the numbers of Jews on the Supreme Court far outnumber the Jewish population of America, about 2%. Buchanan didn’t comment on qualifications nor did he comment that men on the Court also exceed their representation of the population.
Last, the evidence is clear that voter suppression legislation enacted in a host of Republican run states not only affects African American, Latino and poor voters, but also Jewish voters. This impact results because the enacted laws and voting requirements also make it more difficult for elderly individuals and students to register and/or vote. While all of the elderly and students are potentially affected by the laws, the disproportionate number of elderly and college students making up the Jewish population will have a disproportionate result with voting by these individuals reduced.It should also be noted that Republican plans to reduce Pell grants and other college student loan programs would also lead to hardship for the Jewish college student population.
Consequently, based on the foregoing, it could be concluded that any informed Jewish voter would not, in their own best interest, vote Republican, especially if they are basing their vote on the issue of Israel and other ethnic related issues. But then again, Republicans have been somewhat successful in the past in convincing people to vote against their own self-interest or that of the country. Finally, it might also be noted that conservative Republicans who so adore Israel appear to be unaware that Israel has universal healthcare, access to reproductive and other health care services for women, and legalized abortion.One could question whether the so-called conservative Republican support for Israel would continue once they became aware of these Israeli programs that they so detest in the U.S.A.
If you follow politics at all, then you are aware, or at least have heard, of the issue involving Michelle Bachmann and her husband and the counseling clinic they own in Minnesota.
Briefly, Ms. Bachmann is a homophobic, Fundamentalist-Christian, Tea Party, Republican congresswoman from Minnesota who is one of the frontrunners in the Republican presidential race for 2012.Ms. Bachmann’s husband runs the family business, a Christian counseling center, which has come under scrutiny for providing “reparative therapy” for homosexuals.
Simply put, this “therapy” involves religious counseling, bible study, and praying to Jesus to rid a patient of their homosexual tendencies and desires. In common parlance, this treatment approach is known as “pray away the gay.”Despite the fact that there is no scientific evidence or acceptance in the professional psychology community for the use of this “therapy,” the Bachmann clinic utilizes it.
In historical context, the general position of the Bachmanns pertaining to homosexuality was previously brought to the public’s attention when Mr. Bachmann (actually Dr. Bachmann – he has a Ph.D. in psychology) gave a media interview and referred to homosexuals (gays) as “barbarians who need to be educated and disciplined.”The next important chapter in this matter recently came to light when a representative of a group called Truth Wins Out visited the Bachmann clinic as a patient purporting to need assistance in dealing with his homosexuality.The representative videotaped the session. SEE VIDEOTAPE BELOW.
To me, this is a great story.However, given the guidance from the Bachmann counselor documented in the videotape, I wonder why the following photo wasn’t used as part of the “therapy,” or maybe it was and could not be shown for patient confidentiality reasons.
Yet, notwithstanding my initial interest in this story, I am disappointed that this story represents a cup that is half full.Not one news anchor, pundit, investigator or comedian has alluded to that other half: that is, what happens when a lesbian undercover representative goes to the clinic for treatment? No video was produced for this encounter (much to my chagrin) leaving my proverbial cup half empty.
I can only surmise that the female homosexual patient, consistent with the “therapy” approach of the clinic for the male homosexual patient, would be informed that God gave men “packages” to be viewed and messed with, and the clinic counselor would reveal his or, at least, show the following as an example of Jesus’ intention for females to only be attracted to males.
Better yet, and this is certainly no endorsement of the Bachmann approach, the clinic should show their patients videos of Jesus with a couple of hot belly dancers at a Bethlehem club or walking on water with a Cleopatra look-alike.Such videos would certainly be more convincing than the guidance given by the counselor on the video, as well as being more convincing than showing a painting of a bunch of guys at supper.
As an interested voter, I was pleased that Newt Gingrich added himself to the menu of Republican and Tea Party candidates (Carnival Party) running for president.Needless to say, I was very disappointed in the treatment Newt has recently received from his right wing colleagues, both the politicos and the pundits.
Having subscribed to the 2008 Obama campaign mantra of“change we can believe in,” I was fascinated and encouraged that Mr. Gingrich has himself demonstrated, even more than President Obama, a commitment to that mantra.Without even considering his politically hazardous “change” of positions on US involvement in Libya or the Republican House plan to abolish Medicare and give millionaires an additional tax cut, Mr. Gingrich’s historical track record on “change you can believe in” should be embraced by all, especially his right wing, family values cohorts.
Consider the following. The earliest demonstration of Newt’s commitment to “change,” although unknown to most voters, occurred when he was very young and his mother remarried.Newt changed his name from Newton Leroy McPherson to Newton Leroy Gingrich.I can believe in that.Additionally, shortening Newton to Newt instead of using his middle name of Leroy would also seem to be a reasonable change.
A more commonly known fact is Newton’s propensity to “change” wives.
Without going into the sordid details of who, how and why, three marriages certainly constitutes “change” in anybody’s book.Certainly, this easily outscores Obama’s pledge of“change you can believe in.”
Last, but not least, in this short vignette, is the fact that Mr. Gingrich, formerly McPherson, also changed his religion.WOW, if he made a mistake in this change he could be in a lot of trouble, even more trouble than that caused by his changes of positions on political issues such as abolishing Medicare.
The foregoing may be bothersome to some, but not to me.As I previously stated, I subscribe to the mantra of “change you can believe in.”Consequently, I hope that Mr. Gingrich will be the Republican presidential nominee.Only in that way will I have a real choice between “change” candidates that I can believe in.
To be sure, and as one can gather from my previous blog on the “Bush Tax Cuts,” I was not pleased with the final tax cut compromise that continued income tax cuts for the wealthy, raised the estate tax threshold and lowered the estate tax rate below that of 2009, and did nothing to the capital gains tax inequity for hedge fund managers.
Concurrently, I was not pleased that President Obama and the “White House” didn’t make a stronger public case against the Republican position supporting the tax cuts for the wealthy which held the middle class tax cuts and unemployment insurance extension “hostage” until their position was accepted.Additionally, like other leftists and progressives, I was not particularly enthralled with President Obama’s uncomplimentary language for those who worked hard to get a singular middle class tax cut bill which was passed by the House and forwarded to the Senate.Of course, as we all know, the House legislation supported by progressives was filibustered in the Senate by the Republicans with the assistance of a few Democrats, and never received an up or down vote.
However, despite the President’s less than ideal approach to the issue and his treatment of progressives, I have concluded that the tax cut compromise was the only option available to the President to resolve the issue, at least for the time being.In general, this conclusion was based on my assessment that the agreed upon compromise, both from a policy as well as a political perspective, will benefit a majority of the American working class, will contribute to an improved job market, and will assist progressives during the next two years to improve their elect ability and amend the shortcomings in the compromise.
Having come to the foregoing conclusion, and acknowledging my disappointment with the President’s approach, I must state that I was also disappointed with the approach to the tax cut issue taken by certain recognized progressive commentators, namely the MSNBC hosts Ed Schultz, and especially Keith Olbermann.
As I normally agree with the majority of positions espoused by Schultz and Olbermann, and think they substantiate their positions with reliable evidence and argument, I was surprised that during their presentations and guest interviews pertinent to the tax compromise issue, they and their guests seemed to neglect certain obvious facts and seemed to focus on narrow term objectives, and in doing so, hypothesized scenarios that were devoid of supporting evidence.Not included in the guilty here are Eugene Robinson and Ezra Klein, both of whom appeared to rely on factual analysis and political reality rather than emotional hyperbole.
To begin the analysis of where Schultz and Olbermann went off the reservation, let’s first explore some commonly accepted facts and premises pertaining to the tax cut issue.
1.The House bill to lower the tax rates for the middle class, and extend unemployment was filibustered in the Senate by the Republicans and fell well short of the 60 votes needed.
2.The Republicans, who have set a record for filibusters during the Obama administration, are on record as stating that they would filibuster all bills that did not have provisions for extending tax cuts for the wealthy.
3.In January, the Republicans will have a majority in the House and additional members in the Senate.
4.For the upcoming year, the approximately $900 billion in the compromise tax package reduces taxes for the wealthy by approximately $140 billion (individual and estate), and approximately $470 billion for the middle class (including the payroll tax reduction), with approximately $50-60 billion for extended unemployment insurance.
5.Progressives basically agreed that there should be tax cuts for the middle class and extension of unemployment benefits, with additional funds for 99ers.This was also the general philosophical and/or campaign position of President Obama, although I am not sure that he had a specific stand regarding the 99ers.
With the foregoing common set of facts, what did Schultz, Olbermann and guests do that raised my ire and appeared counterproductive?
First, they criticized the President for not negotiating enough and for leaving House leadership and progressives out of the negotiations.Fair enough, I agree.Also, they criticized the President for his attitude towards progressives.Again, I agree.However, in criticizing the President, the most progressive president we will probably have the chance to elect, Schultz, Olbermann and some of their likeminded guests committed the same error Obama did when he criticized the progressives who did not support his position.Did these individuals really think that negative remarks towards the President would advance the progressive cause in the long-term battle against the obstructionist Republicans?After all, the President did not abandon their position or veto the elements of the progressive position. But given the political reality of the situation he was forced to compromise. The results, progressives got what they wanted, but unfortunately, had to give the Republicans what they wanted.
Second, these individuals started citing the potential harm of adding $900 billion to the deficit, and had deficit experts comment on the issue.Citing the $900 billion figure was, of course, disingenuous because all the parties favored the middle class tax cuts, the extension of unemployment, additional funds for the 99ers, and even greater infrastructure stimulus spending, at least to the tune of $500 billion plus.So, in reality the deficit increase was never an issue in principle, but it was cited using the total $900 billion fear figure to make a point when, in fact, these folks only opposed the $140 or so billion going to the wealthy and the impact of that on the deficit.
Tied into the foregoing argument was the prediction, and probably a correct one, that the Republicans would attempt to make future cuts to Social Security and other safety net social programs based on the agreement to reduce the payroll tax, a reduction that helps the middle class and working lower middle class.Although I agree that the Republicans based in the House will probably attempt to initiate such cuts, I would propose that they would attempt to make those cuts even if there was no payroll tax cut.
In addition, such proposed cuts would have little chance of success in the next year or two due to the fact that the Democrats still hold a majority in the Senate and also hold the presidency.In fact,, if the Republicans wanted to run in 2012 on cutting Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, I think that would be a great issue for the Democrats.
Third, the progressive commentators had discussions with guests who stated that a bill without tax breaks for the rich could have been passed because John Boehner stated that he would support a middle class tax cut without a cut for the wealthy if faced with that option.There was no challenge to this hypothesis although any progressive in their right mind would know that John Boehner, one of the leading obstructionists to anything progressive, would be a good bet to back off such a position.It only took a couple of days before Boehner was on television stating that compromise was not something in which he believed.And even if one gave Boehner the benefit of the doubt, our fellow progressives did not state how a stand alone middle class tax cut and unemployment extension would get by Hitchcock serial killer look alike Mitch McConnell and his band of filibustering despisers of Obama in the Senate. It should not be forgotten that the Republicans blicans were the ones that consistently voiced support on various issues only to drop their support and filibuster the minute that Obama stated that he agreed with their position.Relying on these individuals to change their positions because Obama fought harder is a pipe dream.The compromise was Obama’s only choice, and the progressive commentators should have known this.
Fourth, and the most egregious example of poor and inaccurate positioning came from Keith Olbermann.Olbermann had the nerve , after showing an old campaign clip, to interview former Clinton supporter, union representative Tom Buffenbarger, who stated that he knew all along that Obama would not be tough enough to stand up to the Republicans in support of working folks.Despite this guy being full of it, Olbermann did not challenge him.Although I agree with Olbermann on most issues, this tactic was pure BS and Olbermann might as well pulled out a Fox tape of Reverend Wright.
Initially, this jerk (Buffenbarger) claimed that Hillary would have been tougher.I don’t remember Hillary being tougher in opposing the Iraq War.She didn’t even read the Intelligence Assessment.I also don’t remember Hillary being tougher and telling Bill to veto the Graham bill that repealed Glass-Steagall or the Telecommunications Act, both signed by Bill.These failures to be tough have cost the country a lot more in blood and treasure than the two year tax cut for the wealthy to which President Obama had to agree to in order to get middle class tax cuts and unemployment insurance extended.
Further, in challenging Obama’s toughness, without a peep from Olbermann, this idiot conveniently omitted Obama’s toughness in getting passage of “Equal Pay for Women,” Childrens Health expansion, Credit Card reform, Health Care reform, Hate Crimes legislation, the auto bailout, College Loan reform, the “Stimulus,” Wall Street reform, and more.And this president who lacks toughness was able to accomplish all this while being the only president where the 24-hour cable news cycle labeled him a foreigner, a socialist, a Nazi, Hitler like, and a racist who favored “death panels” among other things.Oh no, but he lacks toughness.By the way, I don’t recall seeing any footage of Buffenbarger’s union supporters challenging the Tea Party wackos at any of those healthcare town meetings.No words from Olbermann about any of this.
Last but not least, is the charge by the commentators and guests that Obama was backing down on his campaign promise not to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy. Yes he did, but did he have a choice?I think not.But what was not mentioned was that the failure to reach a compromise would have resulted in Obama breaking his pledge to extend the middle class tax cuts and extend unemployment and do what he could to stimulate job growth.None of the commentator’s seemed concerned with this pledge.
As stated, I tend to think that the President thought that getting what he did was better than nothing and certainly better than what he might get from a Republican House and a more conservative Republican Senate.I’ll trust his judgment on this one, and continue the fight over the next two years, and during the 2012 election joining him instead of fighting him in opposing detrimental Republican proposals that will undoubtedly arise during that period.
Finally, on this day, December 22, 2010, with kudos to Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid and others, we see the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” adoption of START, passage of the Food Safety Act, and passage of the 9/11 First Responders health bill.Yes, the Republicans helped the wealthy get their four percent for the next two years, and the heirs of the super wealthy can hope grandpa or dad dies before 2012, but President Obama appears to have achieved a lot more for progressives and the nation.Ed and Keith, you are both great, but sometimes you have to reserve judgment and look at the broader picture.Happy Holidays!
Dear President Obama and Senate and House Members:
I am writing this letter to give all of you my opinion on the whole “Bush Tax Cuts” issue.As a supporter and volunteer for the Democratic Party in California, and given my background as a Hearing Officer/Mediator and auditor for the State of California, Department of Health Services, I hope you will consider the following common sense, strategic approach to this crucial issue.
Without restating all the facts and figures pertaining to the financial status of the wealthy versus the middle class and poor over the last one to two decades, the deficit, or the reported minimal effect that a tax cut for the wealthy would have on job creation, you must stand firm on your goal of a middle class/working poor tax cut.Despite Republican rhetoric and false statements in support of a tax cut for the wealthy, this must be done without negotiating too far away from the position that the wealthy do not require a tax cut and that such a tax cut would be detrimental for the economy and the deficit.
Strategically, if any compromise is discussed, it can only be regarding the floor amount for tax cuts but not the duration of any tax cuts above $250,000.For example, one could agree that increasing the floor to $375,000 or even $500,000 could be viewed as a compromise that gives a benefit to almost every small business, a standard Republican yelping point.
Such a compromise would be viewed as being reasonable, show that you are willing to negotiate, but also show that you are steadfast, based on firm economic ground, in not giving tax breaks to the super wealthy who neither need or deserve a tax cut. Such a compromise would not save the projected $70 billion per year, but certainly a good portion of it.Part of your negotiation could be that half the savings goes to paying down the deficit and half goes to job stimulation in the form of state aid or infrastructure spending.
However, you cannot agree to any across the board tax cut for all income earners for any period of time, even a year or two.Not only would such a compromise cast doubt on your original position, it would result in the rich getting richer, increase or prevent a decrease in the deficit, not provide any additional funds for job stimulation, and given past history not result in any job creation in itself.Further, it will allow the Republicans both sides of the argument.If the economy grows and the job market improves, as it might from the other actions you have taken including the proposed middle class tax cut, the Republicans will argue that the key factor was the tax cut for the rich and they will propose extending it again.If the economy doesn’t grow and the job market doesn’t improve, the Republicans will argue that the one or two year cut for the rich was not long enough or that the defined period of the cuts created “uncertainty” which prevented investment in the economy or job creation.There is no point in unnecessarily giving the Republicans this opportunity when there is no perceived value to the country as a whole.They are going to lobby for tax cuts for the rich regardless because that is their constituency.
The bottom line is no tax cut for those with incomes possibly over $375,000 or even $500,000. But if you have to compromise to those limits – okay, but no tax cut above those limits for any time period.As you have done, hammer home the points that middle class tax cuts are what the public elected you to do, and that those tax cuts, along with the other programs you have enacted and/or have proposed are the best plan for stimulating jobs, reducing the deficit, and growing the economy.No one has substantiated that continuing tax breaks for the wealthy will accomplish anything other than making the wealthy wealthier.
Similarly, you cannot agree to a discontinuation of the inheritance (estate) tax.Again, compromise can possibly be made on the tax-free floor although it cannot be raised so high as to defeat the philosophical and practical basis of the tax; that is, the free passage of wealth from one generation to another resulting in a permanent wealthy ruling class a la historical Europe.Under no circumstances should the tax rate, regardless of the floor, be less than the corresponding personal income tax rate for the amount in question.
It is also possible that compromise can be made pertaining to the tax on non-liquid assets such as inherited businesses or farms.Although I have heard that there are certain special provisions for dealing with these types of assets, it would not be difficult to establish some tax waiver process for those who could demonstrate a financial hardship if required to pay the inheritance tax
upon receipt of the non-liquid asset.This is currently done as a state administrative function for Medicaid Estate Recovery matters.
Of course, the Republicans, backed by the wealthy, want to repeal the inheritance tax in full.And again, their arguments are bogus.Speaking bluntly but simply, the person who died and left the assets is not being penalized or taxed, he or she is dead.The heirs who might be getting a “free” million and somewhat more even after imposition of the inheritance tax certainly have nothing to complain about.Also, there is no basis for the argument that the assets should not be taxed because that constitutes double taxation.In general, when funds are paid from one individual or entity to another, the funds are taxed at each level.When I am paid at my job, I pay taxes.When I pay my dentist with my after tax funds, the dentist pays taxes on money received from me, which was already taxed.And so on.So again, someone inheriting a couple of million dollars or more has essentially been paid for doing nothing other than having a wealthy relative.These funds should be taxed.
Last, I have read that the prior “Bush Tax Cut” package included provisions that allowed certain hedge fund executives or managers, with enormous incomes, to have their incomes taxed at a capital gains rate that is lower than the normal personal income rate for their income.This is preposterous, and I am sure that the American people, in addition to myself, would support any attempt to reverse this policy.The “Main Street” worker in a factory, a warehouse or a retail outlet doesn’t get this advantage, so why should a Wall Street manager or executive.Talk about unfair.
You have a winning position on the issue of the “Bush Tax Cuts” as it relates to cuts for the middle class/working poor.Even with measured compromises that I have outlined, I think you still have a winning position.However, if you give in to the Republicans and accept major tax cuts for the wealthy in any of the aforementioned areas, your position will be diminished among your supporters as well as among the population as a whole.Further, you wouldn’t be doing the right thing for the country.
As the Carnival Party grounds are emptying out, there is still a group of old white guys at the RAND PAUL FOOD COURT sipping the last of the Kool-Aid from the drink concession.
In general though, across the grounds, although unhappy with the losses in the election by favorites Christine O’Donnell, Carl Paladino, Sharron Angle, Meg Whitman and other carnies, the crowd was thrilled with the other electoral wins, especially that of Rand Paul.The buzz going around is that Paul is the Carnival Party’s best hope to shrink government, shrink the tax burden on the rich, shrink the middle class and shrink the Civil Rights Act. Only a few stragglers were heard questioning what Paul would do to create jobs and stop outsourcing but these same stragglers were also heard rationalizing that job creation was less important than getting rid of that black president.
Over at the FOX NEWS EMPLOYMENT CENTER, which was one of the last standing booths, it was reported that Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck were speaking to Christine O’Donnell about employment at Fox. It was further reported that O’Donnell was informing Hannity and Beck that GOD had told her that she should be working at Fox instead of being an elected official and that is why she ran as the idiot candidate.The reported response of Hannity and Beck was that they would assist O’Donnell if they received the Carnival Party promised millionaires tax cut and the minimum wage was repealed, thereby insuring that there was money available to pay O’Donnell.
Behind closed doors, the Carnival Party organizers were already planning their next event and had approved, given the results of the election, reusing the DAVID VITTER WILD MADAMHORN RIDE, the PALIN-BACHMANN PHOTO BOOTH, and the SHARRON ANGLE SHOOTING GALLERY with the provision that the SHOOTING GALLERY be renamed after a different nutcase who was pro-gun and anti-immigrant and who could actually tell the difference between an Asian and a Hispanic.
The organizers also agreed that they would provide the same Kool-Aid drink to the working carnies and attendants with the hope that the consumption of such would have the same effect, in essence , leading the drinkers to believe that the country would be better off if Obama was defeated and all healthcare, credit card, consumer protection, Wall Street, student loan and education, hate crimes, equal pay for women, VA, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and minimum wage reforms would be repealed. And of course, while masquerading as support for job creation, convincing the carnies and attendants that tax breaks for the super wealthy and the dead are the required course of action. The only question in the organizers minds was whether the current concoction would work in two years.It was concluded that, given the intellectual and educational background of their supporters in conjunction with the amount of anonymous corporate money that could be used for advertising, there was confidence that the supporters would drink-up.
With the final closure of the grounds, one of the carnies noted that many of those leaving seemed disappointed that they had not been able to attend or experience all of the exhibits, rides, and attractions and obtain a souvenir that would remind them of their wonderful experience.Demonstrating amazing creativity, the carnie put together a small stand where these individuals were able to purchase an exact replica of the CARL PALADINO BASEBALL BAT, claimed to represent the people of New York.The purchasers were ecstatic, and were heard saying that they can’t wait to use them during the next election, during the next Rand Paul debate or during Carl’s next meeting with a reporter. SEE BELOW!
