Rocks for Brains

[LPH]

Alan Simpson is a former republican senator. He's the last of a dying breed - elephants without rocks in their brains.

During an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria, Simpson explained that compromise in politics is required.

Simpson laid it out this way: "If you want to be a purist, go somewhere on a mountaintop and praise the east or something. But if you want to be in politics, you learn to compromise. And you learn to compromise on the issue without compromising yourself. Show me a guy who won’t compromise and I’ll show you a guy with rock for brains."

Mr. Simpson is correct. Sadly - both sides of the isle are filled with politicians who have rocks in place of a brain.

And what does this former senator think of Grover Norquist: "For heaven’s sake, you have Grover Norquist wandering the earth in his white robes saying that if you raise taxes one penny, he’ll defeat you. He can’t murder you. He can’t burn your house. The only thing he can do to you, as an elected official, is defeat you for reelection. And if that means more to you than your country when we need patriots to come out in a situation when we’re in extremity, you shouldn’t even be in Congress."

Good for him. Now if only the republican voters would listen to the man and stop voting for these right-wing radicals who think compromise is a dirty word.

View on the Blog​

 

[Robert Heiny]

I wonder if talkers on radio, TV and the Internet have made up a distorted image of differences between purity and compromise in politics. You offered the example of Zakaria and Simpson. Wolf Blitzer repeatedly distorted Donald Trump's old statement about whether President Obama was born in the U.S. instead of asking questions he told Trump he would ask. Blitzer seemed to try to get a repeatable quote, so afterwards repeated citing Trump's attempts to stick to Trumps topic as obfuscating during Blitzer's interview.

These and other talkers offer predicaments (matters of priorities) for politicans to handle, and call them dilemmas (choose either X or Y). I see no nobility in such distortions. As wags have said for decades, they, including Zakaria and Blitzer, appear to go for quotes not options or substance in their interviews. A pox on rocks for brains.

What's the quick fix? Ignore them. Let their ratings sag even more. It appears that's what most people do anyway. Yes? Maybe Sheldon the brainiac has an answer.

 

[LPH]

Distorted images come from all directions. Obama being characterized as unamerican is driven by billionaires. Trump telling people he is smart is a distortion. Rush was a "C" student - at best - has a following of people dumber than a box of crayons.

In terms of the Trump interview.

The interview with Wolf Blitzer was sad for one reason only - Mr. Blitzer did not push harder - he failed to get to the core issue. The real news is the make believe world Donald Trump has built around an issue contrived for bitter old white people to claim "Obama isn't one of us." Trump is a showman and not a politician. He failed to answer because there are no answers.

Months ago Trump ran around the country claiming he had investigators in Hawaii. No he didn't. It was a lie. Trump ran around the interview claiming "many people." Well then - who are these people? No one really but bitter old white people talking to each other and repeating their stupid claim.

Birther: Were you born in the United States?
Obama: Yes. Here is my birth certificate.
Birther: This is a certificate of live birth. Where is the long form?
Obama: Really? Are you crazy? (Long pause, years). OK. Here.
Birther: This is not real.

Blah blah blah. Obama isn't one of us. He's a socialist. He has a hidden agenda based on his father's ideology. He's ruining our country. OMG. He's black!

Wolf Blitzer should have nailed Donald Trump to the wall for being a racist pig. Instead he wimped out. And that made the interview sad.

But - here was the dumbest thing in the world - out of the blue Romney publishes his "birth certificate." Really? It's a certificate of live birth. Where is the long form? LOL. Idiot. We all know he was born in Mexico, ran from the Vietnam war, and can't stick to one side of an issue long enough to govern. He's going to just run on "I'm not Obama." Well then - who the hell are you?

In terms of ratings?

Yes - it is always about ratings for Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc. As Dan Rather nicely stated, news became a profit center, thus, no longer news.

Now - in terms of the Simpson interview. Simpson nailed it. Right-wing evangelical radicals overtook the republican party. They are treating politics as a religion in which compromise is not acceptable - because it is either their way or no way. Let's all pray to the all mighty dollar. They will ruin the middle class so that the rich can make more money. Period. They will lie and create false dichotomies to simply win and be in power.

After all is said and done, Bush's people will be back in power once Obama is defeated in November.

 

[Robert Heiny]

The prospect of profits keeps the world "progressing" even from a rock pile. Please pass the red meat to someone else. I'm a vegetarian in political discussions.

But I will suggest that no one is ruining the so called middle class except those who rely on someone else to provide them with a "job" with a "paycheck." Even the poorest among us has access to things emperors and queens did not have to imagine. Yes? Well, ok, the poorest in the U.S., and some, not all other countries.

 

[LPH]

The prospect of profits keeps the world "progressing" even from a rock pile. Please pass the red meat to someone else. I'm a vegetarian in political discussions.

But I will suggest that no one is ruining the so called middle class except those who rely on someone else to provide them with a "job" with a "paycheck." Even the poorest among us has access to things emperors and queens did not have to imagine. Yes? Well, ok, the poorest in the U.S., and some, not all other countries.

No. The republican talking point fails. People have relied on others for paychecks for generations.

Back to compromise - the radical right thinks evangelizing ideology makes them correct. Instead, discourse is hindered. Worse, non-politicians repeat talking points without understanding the implications: voting against their own interests.

 

[Robert Heiny]

I don't know "Republican talking points." (Should I use a smiley or another face here?)

Just because people have relied on others for jobs for generations doesn't absolve them from relying on their own wit today. (Another smiley?)

Ah, the "radical right," the true historic liberals (for individual liberty), not the King's chit on the King's land, in today's Western politics. It's the imposters claiming the Liberal label today who assert the King's view, more centralized government, who hinder discourse. Why would a historic liberal want to compromise with the King's view? I wonder how many people agree with this fundamental point?