A lot of Democrats are wringing their hands over Joe Biden as Obama’s VP pick – “He’s too boring,” or “He undermines Obama’s call for change.” Some are apoplectic over recent polls showing a “neck-and-neck” race.
I think Biden got the nod because he's a safe bet.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have had a lot of personal animus between them. For that matter, so do McCain and Romney.
Biden wasn't a very interesting pick, nor an ideologically inclusive one - a lot of Democratic operatives were pushing Chet Edwards (D-TX) a leading Conservative Democrat, as a wink to the growing number of Conservative or "Blue Dog" Democrats who now comprise about 25% of the Democrat's Congressional delegation and have given the Dems virtually all their gains since 2006.
Who knows, maybe Rep. Edwards suffered from a name affiliation with another recently disgraced Senator with the same last name that no one seems to want to mention now-a-days.
Politics is a dirty business. Always has been and almost certainly always will be.
The "game" is trying to keep the people from knowing that you're really doing Corporate business in the name of "the common good."
Hey! There's nothing wrong with doing one's Corporate master's bidding, what's wrong is being duplicitous about it.
The Republicans tend to rationalize it in terms of "jobs creation," and "prosperity building," while the Democrats use "the children" and "the environment." BOTH are all too often phonies, as those are usually NOT their primary concerns.
For instance, WHO BENEFITS MOST from America NOT DRILLING in ANWAR, off our coasts and in the Bakken Ridge (Montana and the Dakotas)???
Hmmmmm, NOT the American people.
OK, NOT the country either, at least not in terms of our foreign oil dependence and the national security nightmares it creates.
Oh yeah, the Big Energy Companies (like Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, BP-Amocco, Shell, etc.) ALL benefit GREATLY (just look at their record profits) by that reduction in supply amidst increasing demand.
ANYONE who'll tell you that supply and demand don't control the price of EVERY commodity, including oil, is a flat out liar!
In fact, ONLY supply and demand directly impact the world price of ANY given commodity, including oil.
Anything that INCREASES supply puts a downward pressure on price, just as anything that DECREASES demand also puts a downward pressure on price.....decreasing supply and increasing demand do the reverse.
NOTHING else directly impacts the price of a given commodity.
It's the same with ILLEGAL immigration. Liberals claim to champion it for "diversity's sake," (which is outright BS, for far too many and all too obvious reasons to mention), while Corporatist Republicans champion it in the name of "cheaper goods and services." Cheap labor DOES deliver cheaper goods and services, BUT, a flood of ILLEGAL and unregulated labor INCREASES the supply of LABOR, thereby putting a persistent DOWNWARD pressure on ALL prevailing wage rates.
People NEED to think more like investors.
Investments strategies are ALL based on common sense and the power of supply/demand ratios.
When a few Americans benefit at the expense of the rest of us over cheap, unregulated labor, that's ethically and morally wrong.
Workers are really only salespeople selling a specific commodity - labor.
Not all labor is equal.
Unskilled labor is relatively cheap, while highly skilled, hard to master and more dangerous labor is more expensive (it "pays more").
Whether you're talking about OIL or LABOR, the supply/demand matrix is the SAME.
It’s the same with “good government” and “more open/transparent government.” We ALL know that neither Party really wants that!
Don’t we???
I mean if Democrats wanted anything like that, they’d have probably instituted it between 1960 and 1982 when they had very solid majorities in both Houses of Congress and Democratic Presidents for 12 of those 22 years! Or perhaps, yet again, when they had control of the Executive and Legisltaive branches of government January 1993 through January of 1995.
And most Republicans don’t seem to want that either, or else THEY would’ve probably delivered that between January of 2001 and January of 2007.
Hell, they didn’t even eradicate the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) a supposed GOP bugaboo during that period!
So much for “doing the people’s business.”
In most cases NEITHER major Party supports much that benefits regular folks. Sometimes those things are necessary, or at least arguments can be made for them, BUT the very least we should expect/DEMAND is that they make those arguments deliberately and forthrightly and deliver at least a modicum of honesty and accountability from our elected public SERVANTS.
I think Biden got the nod because he's a safe bet.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have had a lot of personal animus between them. For that matter, so do McCain and Romney.
Biden wasn't a very interesting pick, nor an ideologically inclusive one - a lot of Democratic operatives were pushing Chet Edwards (D-TX) a leading Conservative Democrat, as a wink to the growing number of Conservative or "Blue Dog" Democrats who now comprise about 25% of the Democrat's Congressional delegation and have given the Dems virtually all their gains since 2006.
Who knows, maybe Rep. Edwards suffered from a name affiliation with another recently disgraced Senator with the same last name that no one seems to want to mention now-a-days.
Politics is a dirty business. Always has been and almost certainly always will be.
The "game" is trying to keep the people from knowing that you're really doing Corporate business in the name of "the common good."
Hey! There's nothing wrong with doing one's Corporate master's bidding, what's wrong is being duplicitous about it.
The Republicans tend to rationalize it in terms of "jobs creation," and "prosperity building," while the Democrats use "the children" and "the environment." BOTH are all too often phonies, as those are usually NOT their primary concerns.
For instance, WHO BENEFITS MOST from America NOT DRILLING in ANWAR, off our coasts and in the Bakken Ridge (Montana and the Dakotas)???
Hmmmmm, NOT the American people.
OK, NOT the country either, at least not in terms of our foreign oil dependence and the national security nightmares it creates.
Oh yeah, the Big Energy Companies (like Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, BP-Amocco, Shell, etc.) ALL benefit GREATLY (just look at their record profits) by that reduction in supply amidst increasing demand.
ANYONE who'll tell you that supply and demand don't control the price of EVERY commodity, including oil, is a flat out liar!
In fact, ONLY supply and demand directly impact the world price of ANY given commodity, including oil.
Anything that INCREASES supply puts a downward pressure on price, just as anything that DECREASES demand also puts a downward pressure on price.....decreasing supply and increasing demand do the reverse.
NOTHING else directly impacts the price of a given commodity.
It's the same with ILLEGAL immigration. Liberals claim to champion it for "diversity's sake," (which is outright BS, for far too many and all too obvious reasons to mention), while Corporatist Republicans champion it in the name of "cheaper goods and services." Cheap labor DOES deliver cheaper goods and services, BUT, a flood of ILLEGAL and unregulated labor INCREASES the supply of LABOR, thereby putting a persistent DOWNWARD pressure on ALL prevailing wage rates.
People NEED to think more like investors.
Investments strategies are ALL based on common sense and the power of supply/demand ratios.
When a few Americans benefit at the expense of the rest of us over cheap, unregulated labor, that's ethically and morally wrong.
Workers are really only salespeople selling a specific commodity - labor.
Not all labor is equal.
Unskilled labor is relatively cheap, while highly skilled, hard to master and more dangerous labor is more expensive (it "pays more").
Whether you're talking about OIL or LABOR, the supply/demand matrix is the SAME.
It’s the same with “good government” and “more open/transparent government.” We ALL know that neither Party really wants that!
Don’t we???
I mean if Democrats wanted anything like that, they’d have probably instituted it between 1960 and 1982 when they had very solid majorities in both Houses of Congress and Democratic Presidents for 12 of those 22 years! Or perhaps, yet again, when they had control of the Executive and Legisltaive branches of government January 1993 through January of 1995.
And most Republicans don’t seem to want that either, or else THEY would’ve probably delivered that between January of 2001 and January of 2007.
Hell, they didn’t even eradicate the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) a supposed GOP bugaboo during that period!
So much for “doing the people’s business.”
In most cases NEITHER major Party supports much that benefits regular folks. Sometimes those things are necessary, or at least arguments can be made for them, BUT the very least we should expect/DEMAND is that they make those arguments deliberately and forthrightly and deliver at least a modicum of honesty and accountability from our elected public SERVANTS.
No comments:
Post a Comment