Lots of lists are being written about the decade that's ending tonight. The aughts, the decade has been officially labeled.
Should be called the ought-nots.
My favorite list is entitled "The top ten worst things about the Bush decade." Many readers, I'm just so certain, will enjoy reading Juan Cole's list.
Here's Cole's #1 top worst thing about the Bush decade…..
1. The constitutional coup of 2000, in which Bush was declared the winner of an election he had lost, with the deployment of the most ugly racial and other low tricks in the ballot counting and the intervention of a partisan and far right-wing Supreme Court (itself drawn from or serving the oligarchs), and which gave us the worst president in the history of the union, who proceeded to drive the country off a cliff for the succeeding 8 years. And that is because he was not our president, but theirs.
Throughout Juan Cole's other 9 top worst things about the Bush decade, he defines who the "theirs" are in that last line. The oligarchs who run our country.
An oligarchy is…."a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few."
Those same oligarchs make appearances in each and every one of Cole's "top ten worst things about the Bush decade."
Conservatives believe these oligarchs are intellectualized, liberal prima donnas seeking to bring down America anyway they can through "socializing" all aspects of the national economy.
Liberals understand that, if the money is followed, the American oligarchs are easily identified. They are those who bring tax rates on the wealthy down to historically low levels. They are those who conjured up the Enron's and the WorldComs and the Dotcom bubble, the deregulation of finance, the mortgage crisis, the bank and insurance failures….and benefitted from all of it.
Oligarchs are those who defend and encourage national spending of $1 trillion annually to fuel the military industrial complex, a danger long ago warned about by a Republican president.
Oligarchs are those who work together to prop up and expand health insurance and pharmaceutical companies' profits through legislation favorable to Wall Street. They are those who protect and defend the profits of energy companies, resisting every attempt to move away from carbon dependency.
Oligarchs are everywhere present when it comes to defending and protecting huge tele-communications corporations….helping to deregulate everything, so that consumers pay even more while being sedated by the "competition is god" nursery rhyme.
And don't get me started on the incestuous relationship the U.S Treasury and the FED has going with their Siamese twin oligarch, Goldman Sachs. I might have to use cuss words…and then where would we be?
Read Cole's list.
I will be tending to a family funeral for the next two days, but will then be back with my version of 2009's biggest story.
{ 32 comments… read them below or add one }
Why do liberal fools continue with the fantasy that Bush lost the 2000 election.
Every recount after the supreme court stopped Florida from CHANGING their election LAWS, proved Bush the winner.
If you want to blame anyone, blame the Florida Supreme Court for attempting to change the election laws during an election, they, were the ones that forced the issue into the US Supreme Court, if FLA would have followed its own laws, and treated each ballot equally they would have been able to reach the (what we later learned) correct result.
As for tax rates, come on, quit beating a dead horse here, what was the result of the Kennedy tax cuts, the Reagan Tax Cuts the Clinton Tax cut, and the Bush Tax cuts? Why years and years of prosperity, only deflected by the Johnson tax increases,the Carter Tax increases, and The Congress's unrestrained spending, and democrat corruption in the housing market.
People spend money (from and economic sense) efficiently, governments do not, government spending is fraught with waste and corruption, allowing people to KEEP more of THEIR OWN money, leads to prosperity for more and more people, that is an ECONOMIC FACT, that just cheeses off liberals who think that they need to be controlled by government like little children.
Your wasting your breath, Jeff. From his writings, I don't think the Reverend even knows about the electoral college or it's purpose, much less the fact that Bush won the original Florida vote count, the recount, and the recount after the election was decided. Nor will the Rev admit that Gore only wanted to recount certain districts instead of all of them. Gore only wanted to recount districts that were heavily for Gore.
Bush won in 2000. That's a plain fact, and as we can see, some liberals are still in deep denial about it. So they make up stories about racism, voter intimidation, and a bunch of other gobbledygook.
And the Bush oligarchy thing is a real hoot. I wonder if the Rev is fretting about an oligarchy now that the Dems control everything. If anything, I bet he wishes they had even MORE control.
Actually, it is obvious from the post that the Reverend does not even know what the term "oligarchy" means.
King, you might mention that more people voted for Gore than Bush.
Why I continue to comment is a mystery to me. Perhaps it is similar to the hours I spend trying to make my dog understand that when one throws a ball on the roof even though the garage door is open the ball has not gone into the garage. No matter how many times I throw the ball or expalin the facts to her she insists the ball is in the garage. Did she ever find the balll in the garage? No. Why? Probably in here mind because of an obvious conspiracy that the rest of us were to dense to understand. What the hell lets give it one more try(no. 34 give or take a few). THE CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION(which we I am sure all started with a small basis) SPENT MILIONS OF DOLLARS AND MANHOURS INVESTIGATING THE FLA ELECTION RESULTS AND CAME UP EMPTYHANDED. Do I now feel better? not really
So if Bush won because of a antiquated system called the electoral college he still had less votes yet he went on to rule as if he had a mandate of power for his conservative agenda which he did not have. Meanwhile more people voted for Al Gore and more people are not in the top 2 percent earnings yet he went on to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. He went ahead with his agenda while not worrying what problems they would cause the country long term. He was able to get to get support by using fear, appealing to peoples greed, and somes ignorance.
Unfortunately Cheney keeps mouthing off using his hatred and lies which really now need to be stopped. The democrats must speak up and face his lies with the facts.
Andrea,
The rich richer and the poor poorer is just another lie perpetrated upon idiots by the liberal elitists. Just look up the IRS data, guess what, the rich got richer and the poor got richer and the middle class got richer.
The electoral college is there to protect the people from the large cities and states.
And was another act of genius from our founding fathers, but then liberals can not stand that Federal Power is and should be limited. It is the states and cities who should provide programs for the poor, education, and all the other progressive bullshit handed out by the feds.
And now who is using fear, oh my god the sky will fall if we dont pass the stimulus or health care, or next up crap and trade. Come on, people dying is at least scary, but health care, not in the same league.
Whether our enemies are now bolder because of obama, or because they were afraid of Bush's retaliation, or because 8 yrs is a long time to be somewhat idle, and was inevitable, is for history to decide. But our actions in the face of terror is now, and Miranda-ing a foreign terrorist is just plain stupid, once the jerk in Detroit lawyers up, we can not find out anything about future attacks from Yemen.
Did anyone read Cole's list? This guy is a joke and an idiot. Pure conspiracy theorist. Leave it to the libs to believe this pile of horsesh*t.
Good stuff,…some funny stuff. Andrea made full contact with the ball in her comment. The rest are funny and …..angry…..the dog thing, ..good stuff.
In a dual-narrative political world, one can argue until breathless that their Commission or their Study proves who won what in Fla. 2000. I thought Cole's grandslam was this….
"which gave us the worst president in the history of the union, who proceeded to drive the country off a cliff for the succeeding 8 years. And that is because he was not our president, but theirs."
That's pretty much what happened.
King wonders…."I wonder if the Rev is fretting about an oligarchy now that the Dems control everything…."
What I disliked about Clinton-ism was the capitulation to corporate influences. Many Democrats have sold the people out…..all Republicans have sold the people out. When Nader speaks about there not being "a dime's worth of difference in the two parties", this is what he's talking about.
Democrats and Republicans are part of, and work for, the American oligarchy. There are many genuinely liberal Democrats in the House, a few in the Senate…..not nearly enough to bring about "change we can believe in."
Ain't no thing…..Sarah Palin will straighten it all out.
Worse than Carter, or FDR, or Wilson?
NO freaking way.
Newt and Palin Rev
Still voices disturb.
You feel the ones that are left behind in cooling pink piles.
I, never seen, know nothing, extrapolations.
SUMMER TIME AND THE LIVIN' IS EASY!
What is that last jack ass talkin bout. Ha, blah. You're right Da King these poor revolutionary liberals are trying to ruin the United States Of America. There trying to push our kids into "foreign language" classes to make the MORE HOMOSEXUAL. And when my husband told me about how in school their forcing the kids to take their clothes of in front of each other and make examples. SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THIS OBAMA GETS IN CHARGE!!
Ahh, the Glory that the Lord has made… and He takes… and He takes… and he takes
See the time tags. hes just taunting me. this is a dumm sight and i hate all of you
what a bitch
Gorge is on to something with the "foreign language" classes leading to….well you know what they lead to. But this "ether" person……is baffling.
Jeff…yes, worse than Carter, FDR(!), and Wilson…..yes….much worse.
average….if it's Newt and Sarah….in that order…..GOP has no chance. Sarah/Newt, perhaps. It would be just like Shrub/Dick. The front person knows nothing and is completely inompetent….while the crazed creature in the VP slot runs the country from the shadows. Scary….but possible.
Blomd
Double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, and double digit unemployment, the Carter legacy, and Bush was worse, I want what you are smoking because your fantasy world.
Wilson the man who gave us the league of nations, ( the communist precursor to the communist UN,) and the man who thought the soviets had the right idea. Kill off all the dissenters, 30 million dead cant be wrong.
And FDR who gave us the communist based new deal, and the unconstitutional power grab through "executive orders" the man the dems were so afraid of they changed the constitution to limit the terms of the president, to prevent another future president for life.
Was bush the greatest president of this nation, nope, but far from the worst, in one way he was the right man for the job, I believe after 9/11 Gore would have continued Clintons path of slap on the wrist, (lets bomb an aspirin factory) and appeasement. But then fools like you who do not believe war is justified would have surrendered to Japan after Pearl Harbor, and continue to surrender to terrorists.
Again, you have yet to comment or acknowledge this simple statement. Can you defeat terrorism by picking off the sacrificial pawns sent to bomb, shoot, and poison us, or do you go after the Kings hiding in foreign lands?
"The Kings hiding in foreign lands"……that would be the U.S……that's what we do. We hide our clandestine intelligence kings in foreign lands in the hopes of shaping that foreign land to America's liking. America is a meddler.
First thing America must do is withdraw it's military from Muslim countries.
Second thing to do is broker a two state solution in the Occupied Territories.
While one and two are being carried out……we must kill Bin Laden and Zawahiri. Bush said he simply wasn't "that concerned" about Bin Laden. Bush protected America, not allowing any attacks inside the U.S., you know, after failing to stop the biggest attack on U.S. soil, ever, in 2001. Heckuva job Bushie. Resolute Protector.
"Right man for the job"……funny , funny stuff.
How do we kill bin Laden and Zawahiri if we have withdrawn all our forces from Muslim countries, Reverend? They aren't in Sweden.
You can't kill Bin Laden and Zawahiri with 100,000 foot soldiers and a massive ground effort. You have to be smarter than that. I don't think our current military complex establishment is capable of being smart in that way. They are very smart about accumulating profits…..but not in eliminating our, you know, enemies.
Islamic extremism is an international law enforcement issue. Until the U.S. begins treating it that way…..it will only get worse.
Under another post you just lauded Obama's "we are fighting terrorism over there" program with 30,000 new troops to Afghanistan, Reverend. I also notice your responses aren't highlighted today. Is your wife handling half your responses now or something?
No and no.
Never lauded Obama for ignorantly escalating troop numbers. And, I don't know why the blog format isn't shading my comments,…..but, don't much care about that, either.
tbomb says, " King, you might mention that more people voted for Gore than Bush."
I would have mentioned it, but I assume people already know that. Perhaps you should mention that we don't elect presidents by the popular vote. We use the electoral college, because our presidential elections are in reality 50 separate state elections.
But if you are a popular vote proponent, perhaps you might mention that more people voted for Hillary than Obama too, but Obama still won the Democratic nomination.
Or maybe your new rules only apply sometimes, and not others.
Rev says, "Democrats and Republicans are part of, and work for, the American oligarchy. There are many genuinely liberal Democrats in the House, a few in the Senate…..not nearly enough to bring about "change we can believe in."
So, you're confirming what I said previously. You DO want more of an oligarchy, as long as it's YOUR oligarchy. Good job, Rev. You nullified your own previous point. You favor a oligarchical liberal totalitarian government of ONE viewpoint.
I sure hope I don't get purged if your revolution comes about.
Rev says, "First thing America must do is withdraw it's military from Muslim countries. Second thing to do is broker a two state solution in the Occupied Territories. While one and two are being carried out……we must kill Bin Laden and Zawahiri."
Well, gee whiz, why didn't you say so before ? It all sounds so simple. We withdraw from Muslim countries, broker the two-state solution that we've been trying to broker for 40 years, and then we kill Bin Laden (how we do that after pulling out of Muslim countries should be quite a trick, when we can't even get him when we're there).
Anything else you'd like us to implement, Rev ? How about world peace, like all the Miss America contestants favor, or an income of $100,000 for everyone on the planet ? How about running our automobiles on wind power or sea water ? Gosh, how did I ever miss such easily attainable goals ?
Rev says, "Islamic extremism is an international law enforcement issue."
This is stupid liberal talking point #23. Aren't the police usually called AFTER the crime occurs, or at best while the crime IS occurring ? Duh, Rev. Terrorism is a collaborative intelligence and prevention issue. Sometimes that requires military action, to kill or apprehend the terrorists BEFORE they carry out their plots (unless by "kill Bin Laden," you meant to kill him with kindness).
Yes, King. Law enforcement occurs after the crime occurs. Obama and lemmings like Reverend claim it is a law enforcement problem. Thus, Napolitano was correct in that the present system worked. Unfortunately, the present system sucks.
Yeah, I guess from the 'terrorism is a law enforcement' perspective, the system did work with the underwear bomber. We apprehended him. Golf clap. How underwhelming.
No, I don't want an oligarchy running the nation. I want more liberals in Congress.
"(how we do that after pulling out of Muslim countries should be quite a trick, when we can't even get him when we're there)."
That's because we telegraph our strategy directly to Bin Laden so he can react. It's all very, very ignorant. Like I said, we have to be smarter than the enemy….and so far, no luck.
Finally, King and larry settle on pre-emption as the way forward. That's the Bush Doctrine. King uses the word "prevention"…..and seems to want to fight all political battles going forward on that basis. Bush and Cheney did not prevent 9-11, but they got a pass because, "how could anyone imagine such a thing?", thinking. They didn't prevent the anthrax attacks either. But Obama must prevent every bad person from getting on a plane, whether that bad person does any damage or not. Otherwise, he, as larry says, "suck."
What I really think is that neo-cons are sorry the Detroit bomber wasn't successful….I know Dick Cheney is.
You're all over the map on this one, Reverend. Maybe you should take a break and work on the shading problem for a while.