Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult

**Red Devil** · September-08-11, 11:42 PM

http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all...ult/1314907779

**firstandten** · September-09-11, 01:29 AM

Thank you

That's one of the most enlightening articles I've read in a while

**Papasito** · September-09-11, 07:40 AM

Those lines of dialogue from a classic film noir sum up the state of the two political parties in contemporary America. Both parties are rotten - how could they not be, given the complete infestation of the political system by corporate money on a scale that now requires a presidential candidate to raise upwards of a billion dollars to be competitive in the general election? Both parties are captives to corporate loot.

The first paragraph was great!
After that, the author took sides.

As long as Americans keep picking sides and staying asleep, both parties will continue to crap all over us, as they have been and will continue to do. A population that is divided is easier to control.

**Big Dog** · September-09-11, 08:40 AM

No chance of uniting, in my eyes. Too much polarization,thanks to Rupert. Too much hate. I expect, blood on the streets, with the coming elections.

**firstandten** · September-09-11, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by Big Dog

No chance of uniting, in my eyes. Too much polarization,thanks to Rupert. Too much hate. I expect, blood on the streets, with the coming elections.

We can and do come together under fear of war. W. Understood that concept That's why he was able to get his domestic agenda thru Congress. But you are right it's very hard to do because of all the posturing going on

**Papasito** · September-09-11, 01:00 PM

No chance of uniting, in my eyes. Too much polarization,thanks to Rupert. Too much hate. I expect, blood on the streets, with the coming elections.

Blood on the streets? nah.

Some people were saying Bush II would proclaim himself king and cancel the 2008 election.
They were proven to be kooks.

Some people said there's NO WAY Obama would win in 2008 because of skin color, his background, his associations with shady people, and his background in Chicago thug sleasebag politics.
They were proven to be kooks.

Presidents will come and go. Some will be good, some will be awful. The good ones will have opponants as the bad ones do. But the office has a revolving door, and no matter what goes on every four years, the seat is up for grabs to whoever has the most money and connections, and can get the electoral votes.

The posturing of the parties and the candidates is to make you like them and not the "other guy". All the while, every single one of them are screwing you and me. Not much we can do about it, because we aren't about to march on Washington anytime soon. So all we can do is debate on these forums and try to vote for the lesser of two evils. So sad, but true. The nation that was once supposed to be the first country to have a nation run by the people, for the people has turned into a nation that is run by the privelaged and connected, over the people. Congress was supposed to be a part-time job for representatives of the local community, or State, and has twisted itself into a full-time cash raquet. Nothing today is as it was intended.

But even with all the crap, we are still the best on the globe.
Hopefully we don't take what little good we have left and throw it away.

Rome stood strong in the world for a thousand years.
So far America has stood 235.

**Jimaz** · September-09-11, 02:43 PM

Chris Matthews interviews the author in a video at the Daily Kos.

**Big Dog** · September-09-11, 03:19 PM

He isn't taking sides. I don't believe taking sides is wrong, when one side is F'd up. He just telling you how much, they are f'd up, IMO. Just sayin'.

**gazhekwe** · September-09-11, 04:38 PM

Agree, he isn't taking sides. This bit on the Democrat non-strategy is very telling:

Democrats ceded the field. Above all, they do not understand language. Their initiatives are posed in impenetrable policy-speak: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The what? - can anyone even remember it? No wonder the pejorative "Obamacare" won out. Contrast that with the Republicans' Patriot Act. You're a patriot, aren't you? Does anyone at the GED level have a clue what a Stimulus Bill is supposed to be? Why didn't the White House call it the Jobs Bill and keep pounding on that theme?

And this about "entitlements":

You know that Social Security and Medicare are in jeopardy when even Democrats refer to them as entitlements. "Entitlement" has a negative sound in colloquial English: somebody who is "entitled" selfishly claims something he doesn't really deserve. Why not call them "earned benefits," which is what they are because we all contribute payroll taxes to fund them? That would never occur to the Democrats.

I've been banging that drum all this time, dammit, we ARE entitled to things we PAID FOR!

**Big Dog** · September-09-11, 04:46 PM

Nice post and opinion gaz.

**Jimaz** · September-09-11, 04:54 PM

Well thank you, Red Devil.

I've read most of that information elsewhere but to read it from someone who has actually lived it first hand puts a whole new level of confirmation on the stories.

I highly recommend the above Chris Mathews interview. Usually nothing fazes Mathews but Lofgren's story shook him up. In the video, Lofgren himself appears to be a very careful and deliberate man. Mathews seems surprised he's still alive.

"Political terrorism" is pretty strong language but he certainly makes his point.

**Crumbled_pavement** · September-09-11, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by Jimaz

Well thank you, Red Devil.

I've read most of that information elsewhere but to read it from someone who has actually lived it first hand puts a whole new level of confirmation on the stories.

I highly recommend the above Chris Mathews interview. Usually nothing fazes Mathews but Lofgren's story shook him up. In the video, Lofgren himself appears to be a very careful and deliberate man. Mathews seems surprised he's still alive.

"Political terrorism" is pretty strong language but he certainly makes his point.

Just on the point that Matthews brings up when he asks why Republicans only like private institutions and not public ones, I think it has to do with exclusivity. You can't reallly make a public institution exclusive, it's open to all citizens. Private institutions however, can be made to be exclusive and can exclude those who are deemed "undesirables". If you want to rid a community of people you don't like then you strenghthen the institutions you can keep them out of while weakening the ones you can't.

**Jimaz** · September-09-11, 09:05 PM

Originally Posted by Crumbled_pavement

Just on the point that Matthews brings up when he asks why Republicans only like private institutions and not public ones, I think it has to do with exclusivity. You can't reallly make a public institution exclusive, it's open to all citizens. Private institutions however, can be made to be exclusive and can exclude those who are deemed "undesirables". If you want to rid a community of people you don't like then you strenghthen the institutions you can keep them out of while weakening the ones you can't.

Yeah, I think that's generally true by definition.

The very most undesirable patrons might simply be the ones who can't afford the price of admission if the profit motive is the only factor. That doesn't explicitly violate any racial, gender, etc. discrimination laws yet can have the same effect.

I vaguely recall a related issue in New Orleans in the 1960s. An amusement park on the southern shore of Lake Pontchartrain [[Pontchartrain Beach?) allegedly wanted to exclude blacks. They couldn't do so legally so instead they set an unreasonably high minimum number of ride tickets each individual patron would have to buy to gain entry. Blacks tended to have larger families than whites there at that time so the aggregate price of admission for black families tended to price them out of admission even if each family member wanted only a few rides or merely access to the private beach.

Interesting bolding of "public" there.

**jiminnm** · September-10-11, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by gazhekwe

And this about "entitlements":

You know that Social Security and Medicare are in jeopardy when even Democrats refer to them as entitlements. "Entitlement" has a negative sound in colloquial English: somebody who is "entitled" selfishly claims something he doesn't really deserve. Why not call them "earned benefits," which is what they are because we all contribute payroll taxes to fund them? That would never occur to the Democrats.

I've been banging that drum all this time, dammit, we ARE entitled to things we PAID FOR!

Except that you haven't paid enough for them

The amounts we've paid into social security and medicare are woefully insufficient to pay out the amounts that are being, and will be, paid out.

**gazhekwe** · September-10-11, 09:41 PM

What is left in the system may not be adequate, but what was originally put in during the baby boomer employment bubble was sufficient to pay for those who were collecting AND put in a substantial amount to earn the interest and accumulate. BUT it was "borrowed" to pay for other things. Maybe if it was repaid with interest you all could quit worrying so much about the sky falling.