Of course…

From Think Progress:

But what if the jobs picture continues to brighten, with millions of additional jobs added between now and November? Republicans will credit the resiliency of the American economy instead of Democratic policies.

This is exactly the kind of nonsense that I can’t stand and makes me wish either 50,000 major parties would spring up or lose every single one of them (I’d prefer the latter) and let people run on nothing but their name, rather than hiding behind a behemoth. Democrats do the same thing too, so it’s just as annoying.

• “Hey, the economy was awesome during Clinton’s second term!”
• “Well, that’s because of Reagan’s policies. They just took seven years to filter down.”

• “Hey! We’d be out of Iraq if it weren’t for Bush!”
• “Umm, so who was it that okay-ed the surge in Afghanistan?”

The second one is kind of a red herring, since they’re two different Fronts (and doesn’t show that we’re “down” to 100,000 troops in Iraq – only 30,000 less than our average until the surge), but the implied point of the first bullet is that Bush was war-happy and a liberal President would not be such; as we can see, Obama isn’t exactly what was hoped for in that regard. Coincidently, we’re up 30,000 troops in Afghanistan; this of course is going just as “well.”

Republicans will credit the resiliency of the American economy instead of Democratic policies.

An economy so resilient, in fact, that it’s been in one of the longest, and hardest hit recessions in 80 fuckin’ years. Honestly, I’d wager to say it’s really been in the tank since the ’02 Dot Com bubble.

Zany Platforms

I found this at Pharyngula and it’s just awesome to read:

http://www.mainepolitics.net/sites/default/files/Maine_GOP_platform.pdf

1. The Constitutions, both State and Federal, are the framework to which any and all legislation must adhere.

You have to wonder what group of lawyers who passed the BAR aren’t already doing this? Do they make this point because every decision that gets made actually does work within the confines of a document that purposefully limited it number of specific laws, but just not in the way the GOP hoped for? Whine much?

a. All legislation must adhere to the restrictions outlined in the Constitution to protect the individual from intrusive government.

Legislation doesn’t have to do jack shit; the judiciary lets us know whether or now any law passed is able to work within our system, hence, back to part one.

c. Insist on strict adherence to our 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms.

I don’t oppose most gun limits — I think its absurd to think we should be allowed to buy automatic weapons, or any sort of explosive/incendiary device, but why do Republicans bring up this point constantly? Most other countries in the world have full-on bans of guns, and there is a small crowd of people who wish the same here, and plenty of people just choose not to ever use them, and going to just about any sensible gun forum will show you people are not cool with people who abuse this right, but even every Democrat I know won’t even whisper anything about this topic let alone be vocal enough that gun control might be tightened.

i. Prohibit any public funding of advocacy groups such as ACORN

It might be because I don’t pay attention to non-news, but I never got into to what the fuss with ACORN was about. Hell, I’ve never even heard anyone I know even mention them. But for what its worth, aren’t there also groups like the NRA that are also advocacy groups? Why only focus on this one specifically? It would make sense if there were many other such groups, but this is the only one who’s name really gets spread on the news. How come every time Democrats bring up campaign finance reform, i.e., to get groups like this to disclose their campaign contributions and donor lists, are shot down nearly instantly?

iii. Reject any effort to give foreign citizens the right to vote in the US in any situation or capacity.

It’s pretty tough to vote without being registered, if they do, that’s voter fraud, something we already take seriously — again, why is this near the top of the list for a state party’s official platform?

i. Reject the UN Treaty on Rights of the Child.

Every country in the world (Somalia will soon) has ratified this, it basically formally places into law decent, practical resolutions and doesn’t seem to stress anything at all crazy or politically frightening. For a group that so highly prizes themselves on human loving, you have to scratch your head at this one. Is it all just anti-UN sentiment? This crowd will never say anything to stop companies from going international, moving their headquarters out of the US, outsourcing, etc., but being formally recognized internationally as having codified a set of human rights law, forget it.

iii. Reject any agreement which seeks to confiscate our firearms.

This one is just weird because no agreement exists. Fact check on gun ban treaty that doesn’t even exist yet.

From this article:

[…]brings up a horrifying proposition that the theory of “international norms” means the U.S. might be bound by the treaty even if we never sign on.

You know, I think the next time we ever ask NATO or another country to go to war with us, and they say no, and we call them pussies, they can throw all this shit back into our faces.

ii. No Pension

iii. Congress participates in Social Security under the same rules as the general public.

iv. Congress can no longer vote themselves a pay raise.

v. Congress participates in the same health care plan as the general public. No preferential plans or treatment.

This actually isn’t so bad, I understand that it’s a reaction to the fact that nearly everyone in government and the banking industry messed up, but it still seems a bit odd. Rules of pensions are just about like any others. Congress votes for a cost of living pay increase, but who doesn’t get one at work? The last point is the strangest though: this is the same group of people who made it impossible for the general public to actually reside under a common plan. The entire system is based on preferential plans and treatment. If the government chooses to have the same health care plan as say, Microsoft, and the same treatment options as The Cleveland Clinic, well, then they’d fit that last description.

i. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman.

ii. Parents, not government, are responsible for making decisions in the best interest of their children, whether disciplinary, educational, or medical.

iii. We recognize the sanctity of life, which includes the unborn.

No one cares what you think the first thing should be, you go have your ‘traditional’ family, let others do what they please. If “parents” can do what they please, what difference does it make if two adults can’t have kids naturally but can in other ways, or, barring their want of children, if parents are responsible for their own lives and lives of their children, why can’t gays make their own decisions as adults, too? It just seems hypocritical for no damn good reason. Not touching the third one, except to say, why do you officially state you will not sign a treaty that formally recognizes the sanctity of life in children, yet mention it as one of your most important tenets (a platform certainly would have unimportant points, would it?)

a. Return to the principles of Austrian Economics, and redirect the economy back to one of incentives to save and invest.

I don’t know what Austrian Economics is, I’m fairly certain Austria (being apart of the EU) doesn’t even know what this is, or, most certainly do not abide by these fantastic financial lessons, but the world’s changed in the past, I’m guessing, 125 years, why not update our theories a bit?

b. Cut spending, balance the budget, and institute a plan for paying down debt. Proclaim that generational debt shifting is immoral and unconscionable and will not be tolerated!

This article from Wikipedia shows that the same party that decries the lack of fiscal responsibility is also the worst (until now) offender of fiscal irresponsibility. Clinton started off rough, probably from many policies in place by his predecessors, who went fucking apeshit (even Nixon LOWERED the debt to GDP ratio during the height of Vietnam) , but took us to budget surplus by the end of his term, money that could easily accumulated more were it not for his successor. (If you paid over 300 dollars in taxes in 2002, you really lost out on the 800+ billion dollar tax cut that year. Money which could have gone to pay off much of the debt we’d accumulated.)

d. Return to transparent and honest reporting of economic statistics free of gimmicks and distortions.

Statistical reporting is very hard to understand and undertake correctly and with care. Most of the time this is done very well, the problem is, most reports you read aren’t from those creating the stats, they’re from news services or think tanks doing analyses of the numbers and reporting those. This is where the problem lies – most people never even see the primary source, and you’ll be damned to see a link to the report in most cases.

g. Defeat Cap and Trade, investigate collusion between government and industry in the global warming myth, and prosecute any illegal collusion.

This is my favorite of the entire page. I know nothing of Cap and Trade, it’s basically the best of a bad list of options; people who support global warming evidence even shy away from it. It’s not the all-encompassing chaos it’s made out to be, but it’s certainly not the best.

That’s not the funny part. The implied premise is that the industry is in collusion with the government to make money off of faking global warming data. Now, the reason for defeating C&T is because Republicans fear it will be that all-encompassing chaotic evil that will destroy the economy. The original assumption is the government is fudging the data for nefarious purposes (no one says what these are or why they’d push so hard for fake evidence) for their own gain. This statement, on the other hand, implies that there is money to be made from global warming! My question: Why not let them? If spending money on wind farms generates jobs, revenue, and lack of dependence on oil (any oil, shut the hell up about “foreign [implied: evil sand monkey] oil”), then wouldn’t this be a good thing?

h. Freeze current stimulus funds, prohibit any further stimulus bills, and apply all unspent funds towards the debt they created.

Good idea. (Maybe next time though you shouldn’t take any of the money if you want to appear to have principles.)

i. Promote energy independence aggressively by removing the obstacles created by government to allow private development of our resources; natural gas, oil, coal, and nuclear power.

Why not instead create incentives for better energy that will last? If I started a business where I had precise data to manufacturing, logistics, topographical charts, etc., I would be a bit hesitant to sign up for an uncertain alternative that may not pay off (hydrogen). On the other hand, if I’m given $500,000 to start up a company to investigate the possibility of great energy resources (using bullshit to fuse Hydrogen into Helium), I’d sign up in an instant. Talk is always made about the childrens, why is this conspicuously left out? Pressing future generations to locate new sources of energy on far smaller and more unstable timetable (i.e., Exploration A doesn’t work out as well as planned – shit hits the fan harder and quicker than 50 years prior) seems a burden they could do without, considering we still do have the vast resources to continue in the old ways, and explore new options with greater ease. I’m a fan of nuclear but the costs involved don’t seem to justify pushing it hard at this point in time. People seem to ignore Obama has given enough money to jump start the system, but of course, it wasn’t enough. (I thought we didn’t like stimulus handouts?) Also note, that I just say the cost. The former three in that list are already inexpensive, but are increasingly harder to find, nuclear power is something that should be more than just looked at as an option.

1. Remove the restrictions on health providers, (as was done in New Hampshire), to increase competition, drive down the costs, and increase the options available.

I realize not all of these are explained as to “how” it will be done, but most are self-explanatory, or are a regulatory matter, but how will you do this? It’s cheaper just to fly to Mexico and get a surgery done.

i. Eliminate the Department of Education and restore schools to local control as specified in the constitution.

???

b. Repeal and prohibit any participation in efforts to create a one world government.

???