Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Republicans are not Terrorists

In a recent column, writer Joe Nocera equated the members of the Tea Party to terrorists, pointing out their “jihad on the American people.”  In response to Tea Party criticism, Nocera quickly issued an apology for his “intemperate” language.

I have several friends who are Republicans. Some are moderate, and some are Tea Partiers. They are certainly not terrorists – I would categorize them as patriotic but perhaps misguided Americans. But let’s separate my friends, who sincerely want what’s best for America, from the Republican politicians and corporatists, who are driven by monetary greed, the lust for power, and their focused goal of removing Barack Obama from office at all costs.

Osama Bin Laden’s aim was to wreck the American economy and instill fear among the American people. And with the assistance of the Bush/Rove/Koch power mongers, he succeeded.

Merriam-Webster defines terror as a state of intense fear. Certainly today’s Republican leadership has succeeded in spreading that state of fear across the nation – fear that any American Muslim is a potential suicide bomber, fear that Hispanics will outnumber Caucasians in some areas and dominate the voting process, fear that curtailing wasteful military spending will cause us to be invaded by China or the Grand Duchy of Fenwick, fear that if we don’t pray in school that God will look unfavorably on us, and fear that if citizens can’t buy AK-47s without a background check, liberal thugs will rape, pillage, and plunder their sometimes ill-begotten treasure.

Even more pernicious is the fact that though their tactics are different, the current crop of Republican leaders, with the help of some chickenshit Democrats,  are working toward the same outcome that Osama Bin Laden strived for – transforming America into a third world banana republic.

So, Mr. Nocera, if your apology was aimed at average Republican citizens, it was justified. But if your original column referred to the leaders of the Tea Party Republicans, no apology was necessary. Rank-and-file Republicans are not terrorists, but their leaders are moving this nation along the path that will give Osama Bin Laden a posthumous victory.


  1. "want what's best for America" and "removing Barack Obama from office" are synonyms. Republicans who are your friends believe this, Republicans who are not your friends believe this, and the politicians we have been able to elect believe this.

    I don't believe either set of politicians wants to turn America into a third world banana republic (is that a racist term when I use it?) but Obama is doing a a remarkable job of moving us in that direction. We are already on the way to a third world banana republic credit rating.

  2. The Republicans have made the removal of Barack Obama their primary goal - even more important than working with the Democrats to come to a compromise solution. They would rather see the country default if it means giving them ammunition to get elected.

    As far as the credit rating is concerned, S&P specifically calls out the Republican intransigence as a primary reason for the downgrade.

    Obama is ineffective as president not because he's a "socialist" but because he is either unwilling or unable to overcome Republican opposition and forward the agenda that most Americans want.

  3. It is simply and factually untrue that S&P "called out Republican intransigence as a primary reason for the downgrade". They mention the gridlock only as an indication of a lower probability that our problems will be addressed properly.

    Here is the meat of what they wrote:

    "The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics."

    "We could lower the long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case."

    If the "clean" debt increase the Dems wanted had been rubber-stamped by the Republicans, this same downgrade would have come. Conversely, if the Democrats in the Senate had adapted either plan the House passed, there would have been no downgrade. The last paragraph I quoted makes it crystal clear that if we do not reduce spending, or we increase interest rates as a byproduct of trying to inflate our way out of this debt crisis, more downgrades are coming.

    Obama is ineffective as a president because he has no clue how to lead. Even liberal Democrats are figuring this out. Leaving aside whether or not his ideas are good, he is simply incapable of convincing anyone, or of using any negotiating tools other than petulance and arrogance. The American people are one step away from tuning him out completely, much (as I hate to say) they did Bush in his last two years. I never expected to say this, but the country would have been much better off if Hillary Clinton had been the Democrat elected.

  4. I have to agree with most of your last paragraph. One of the reasons I did not support Hillary Clinton (who I've met and found to be fiercely intelligent) was that I was concerned with her belligerency and was afraid she'd continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and perhaps expand to Libya. But if she were president, we'd have a much better health care system today instead of the watered-down gift to the insurance companies that the Republicans foisted upon us.

    So in 2012, unless the Republicans nominate someone like Jon Huntsman, the contest will boil down to one between a sane and rational moderate Republican (Obama) and a crazy gun-toting religious fanatic.

  5. I would think calling Obama a Republican is much more offensive to Republicans than calling him a socialist is to socialists.

  6. Oh, and I agree we would have a much better health care system under Hillary. It would be the same market-based system we had under Bill (and all other presidents). I don't think she would have thrown away 60 House seats and a half-dozen Senate seats to force through the monstrosity Obama forced through.