It must be hard apologizing for the Democratic party to people in the middle nowadays. It must really be hard when you yourself are, like “Campaign Obama”, merely pretending to have Liberal thoughts and feelings in head. When you are so far to the left that you think the leaders of China are “reasonably enlightened” in their exercise of autocracy it is nearly impossible unless you are preaching to the choir as Thomas Friedman surely is in the following [dubious] opinion piece.
Here it is in all its Orwellian glory with commentary and, as a special feature, bolding and translation of double-talk provided by Poli-Speak 3.15 from SmellTheBull Inc.
“Our One-Party Democracy
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: September 8, 2009
Watching both the health care and climate/energy debates in Congress, it is hard not to draw the following conclusion: There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.
One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult [Poli-Speak Trans: partisan and self-serving] but critically important [power and wealth consolidating] policies needed to move a society forward [Poli-Speak Trans: into our Lord Obama’s vision of Mao’s Promise] in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power. China’s leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and energy efficiency is going to soar. Beijing wants to make sure that it owns that industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including boosting gasoline prices, from the top down.”
Of course the leadership in China also heartlessly believe that any suffering by individuals in pursuit that goal is fully counterbalanced by the “Good Intentions” held in their soggy-warm hearts. Truly, this is a talent the partisans on the Left an Right seem to envy.
“Our one-party democracy is worse. The fact is, on both the energy/climate legislation and health care legislation, only the Democrats are really playing.”
Personally, on both subjects I don’t think the Dem leadership are playing either, at least not with a full deck. It is not in the rules for them to declare every card THEY hold to be wild.
“With a few notable exceptions, the Republican Party is standing, arms folded and saying “no.” Many of them just want President Obama to fail. Such a waste.”
In some cases that is true, and it is not just a waste it is sad and pathetic. But it is prevalent on BOTH sides of the aisle these days. Most of the Republicans holding back are just waiting for the debates to be about REALITY, rather than a made up Marxist dream world of AGW and free doctors.
“Mr. Obama is not a socialist; he’s a centrist. But if he’s forced to depend entirely on his own party to pass legislation, he will be whipsawed by its different factions.”
I had to think about that one for a while… Obama a CENTRIST? In what sense of the word? I gave M. Friedman the benefit of the doubt, and assumed that he THINKS he is making sense when he says this…hmm, what a conundrum…
Then it hit me! To the partisan mind, ANYONE who thinks ANYTHING that significantly deviates from the path that is “True and Good” is BAD. This cannot be overstated. It is something like the Islamic concept that ANYONE who is not Muslim, or at least following Islamic rules, is in an ACTIVE state of criminal rebellion against God Almighty and so, NOT a valid part of the political (or any other) process.
I think that this must be Friedman’s mindset. To HIM Obama IS Centrist. That is because the VALID right wing of politics ends with SOCIALISTS in his world!!! I guess the enlightened Chinese gentlemen he referred to are the Left-extreme in the World of Obamanations.
“Look at the climate/energy bill that came out of the House. Its sponsors had to work twice as hard to produce this breakthrough cap-and-trade legislation. Why? Because with basically no G.O.P. representatives willing to vote for any price on carbon that would stimulate investments in clean energy and energy efficiency, the sponsors had to rely entirely on Democrats — and that meant paying off coal-state and agriculture Democrats with pork.”
Al “the science is settled” Gore must be beaming in satisfaction at the thorough brainwashing job his “big Lie” has done on Mr. Friedman.
My dear Thomas, the legislation is only a “breakthrough” if you do not CARE if the science is correct or if the price would destroy the very country you claim to be protecting. The conservatives are not willing to pay the farm to make CO2 a “pollutant” for purely political reasons. You might want to talk to someone who does NOT make their living pretending “Green Al” Gore is on anyone’s side but his own. Remedial CO2 Global Warming 101
“Thank goodness, it is still a bill worth passing [Poli-Speak Trans: It may not do anything for CO2 but, Al & Co. can still steal trillions and Our Lord Obama can have the control He needs over our pathetic country to remake it in His Image]. But it could have been much better — and can be in the Senate. Just give me 8 to 10 Republicans ready to impose some price on carbon, and they can be leveraged against Democrats who want to water down the bill.”
So, the legislation is so vital, and so important that Obama cannot muster his majority party to support him and pass it HIS way? There are so many factions in the party of GOOD people that Obama needs the votes of demon Right-Wingers to get it through untainted? Wow, that makes as much sense as Saudi Arabia asking for, and thinking they NEED, Jewish influence on votes in the UN in order to pass a resolution condemning Israel to oblivion!!!
Let me put it another way Tommy, do you ever THINK about what comes out of your mouth?
“China is going to eat our lunch and take our jobs on clean energy — an industry that we largely invented — and they are going to do it with a managed economy we don’t have and don’t want,” said Joe Romm, who writes the blog, climateprogress.org. “
I looked over Joe’s blog; nicely written propaganda. He quotes FRAGMENTS of articles (you have to pay to read the whole thing) that don’t really say anything conclusive to support his flat-footed denials and assertions. Nowhere but in the Holocaust Denial and Creationist movements have I ever seen such consistent misstatements and distortions of reality. Nowhere else in my experience can you find this constant exposure of one fact or two out of context supporting an enormous tissue of self-serving lies.
In this little gem of dissimulation we find Romm declaring the following:
1 The last decade has been the WARMEST ON RECORD
This sounds impressive, but the article does not mention that the records only started in 1880. Somehow the “scientists” authoring do not mention the obvious, in 1880 they might have had instruments of “modern accuracy” but, they only had a few, in a few locations – and that many of them would be affected by increasing temps from urban development over the 11 decades involved.
The data has to be “filtered” [poli-speak political scientist module trans: cooked] to account for the mix of rural and urban data station. That this cooking inserts changes LARGER than the supposed warming trend is ignored. It ignores the pseudo-random locations of the stations until the network was fully filled out by the 1070’s. It also should be mentioned that there are MORE urban stations in the data set used by the GW crowd than rural ones. This automatically produces a “warm” result.
Bottom line though, you can’t draw any conclusion about global temperature trends by looking at 11 decades or 1/.0088th of the time since the end of the last glacial period. When a supposed climate “scientist” tells you that he can average 5 to ten years temperatures and tell you if there is a warming trend but, not mention the SOLAR variance that has a cycle longer than ten years, you know that politics has trumped science.
2 high temperatures have been linked to lower (near what ours is now) CO2 levels in the Earth’s historical record than previously thought
Again, wow, scary… but it doesn’t tell you that the truly inconvenient truth in Gore’s film was that the historical record is CLEAR that temperature rises decades BEFORE the CO2 rises!! There IS a link but it is:
A) Temp up
B) CO2 up; probably from increases in the biosphere.
The trend continues as melting glaciers and increases in methane are discussed. Each time isolated bits of data are used to “prove” complex and subtle trends that are close to if not within the limits of error individually.
A case in point is an article speaking about the dangers to the Amazon rainforest from a long term and severe LOSS of rainfall. What you are not told is WHY the GW fanatics think that a RISE in the Earth’s temp will produce a DRIER Earth when all historical records say the opposite about a warm Earth!
So, THAT is the kind of “science” that Mr. Friedman uses to back up his politics.
“The only way for us to match them is by legislating a rising carbon price along with efficiency and renewable standards that will stimulate massive private investment in clean-tech. Hard to do with a one-party democracy.”
Not exactly my idea of a democracy: force the unwilling public to fund research for your pet projects by collecting punishing taxes on a pretend “pollutant” that coincidently are committed to your Messiah’s own projects! It turns my stomach but, I have to admire the symmetry – collect billions to make the public pay out trillions thinking they can then escape the cycle; silly public.
“The same is true on health care. “The central mechanism through which Obama seeks to extend coverage and restrain costs is via new ‘exchanges,’ insurance clearinghouses, modeled on the plan Mitt Romney enacted when he was governor of Massachusetts,” noted Matt Miller, a former Clinton budget official and author of “The Tyranny of Dead Ideas.” “The idea is to let individuals access group coverage from private insurers, with subsidies for low earners.
And it is possible the president will seek to fund those subsidies, at least in part, with the idea John McCain ran on — by reducing the tax exemption for employer-provided health care. Can the Republicans even say yes to their own ideas, if they are absorbed by Obama? Without Obama being able to leverage some Republican votes, it is going to be very hard to get a good plan to cover all Americans with health care.
“Just because Obama is on a path to give America the Romney health plan with McCain-style financing, does not mean the Republicans will embrace it — if it seems politically more attractive to scream ‘socialist,’ ” said Miller.”
One way to tell Pravda from truth is to look back at what your local sincere politician said about his goals and aims a few months back. This article was written 5 months ago and not much now remains of the “core” of the plan as Friedman described it back in Sept.
“The G.O.P. used to be the party of business. Well, to compete and win in a globalized world, no one needs the burden of health insurance shifted from business to government more than American business.”
A little Econ 101 refresher for MR. Friedman: no matter wh0 cuts the checks the PEOPLE pay for healthcare. Taking the inefficient present system and adding MORE inefficiency by handing it to the Gov. will hardly make it cheaper after all the costs “trickle down.”
“No one needs immigration reform — so the world’s best brainpower can come here without restrictions — more than American business. No one needs a push for clean-tech — the world’s next great global manufacturing industry — more than American business. Yet the G.O.P. today resists national health care, immigration reform and wants to just drill, baby, drill.”
Since when has the US been wanting for BRAINS as opposed to JOBS for college educated brains to fill? And since when have US immigration laws prevented educated professionals from easy entry as opposed to unskilled folks from non-industrial lands? Who knows, maybe if we stop demonizing CO2 and focus on REAL clean tech we might win in the end anyway.
““Globalization has neutered the Republican Party, leaving it to represent not the have-nots of the recession but the have-nots of globalized America, the people who have been left behind either in reality or in their fears,” said Edward Goldberg, a global trade consultant who teaches at Baruch College.”
Who can’t trust the objective opinion about globalization of someone who makes their living promoting it? That is like asking a Bishop if the Catholic church can be completely trusted!
“The need to compete in a globalized world has forced the meritocracy, the multinational corporate manager, the eastern financier and the technology entrepreneur to reconsider what the Republican Party has to offer. In principle, they have left the party, leaving behind not a pragmatic coalition but a group of ideological naysayers.”
Funny, I thought the public split about 50/50 Rep/Dem as usual. Somehow, everyone else is unaware of this mass defection. I guess that is what happens when you can’t tell your nap-time reality from your waking world.