LINCOLN HAD “THE RARE WISDOM OF A TEMPERAMENT THAT CONSISTENTLY DISPLAYED AN UNCOMMON MAGNANIMITY TO THOSE WHO OPPOSED HIM.” DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN"LINCOLN: TEAM OF RIVALS"HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/TEAM_OF_RIVALS:_THE_POLITICAL_GENIUS_OF_ABRAHAM_LINCOLN 11 dream Cabinet picks the GOP would still oppose
Give President Obama a time machine and a wish list -- Republicans would still find reasons to oppose them all VIDEO
BY DAVID SIROTA
The twin spectacles of Republican lawmakers opposing one of their own for defense secretary and the conservative media slamming that nominee, Chuck Hagel, as a leftist, raises a thought-provoking question: What Obama nominee wouldn’t the GOP oppose?
To get at the extremism that is exposed by such a question, let’s broaden the scope of possible nominees. Imagine that, in the basement of the White House, President Obama had a machine that could let him travel to any time or dimension to recruit for his top positions in his administration. Then ask yourself: Would Republicans still oppose those all-star picks, even icons of their own party? The answers seem pretty clear:=
Billed as the founder of the modern Republican Party and yet also the political hero of Democratic President Obama, Lincoln seems at first glance to be a perfect consensus pick for any number of Cabinet slots in the Obama White House — especially because he would get a boost from the Beltway’s all-powerful neoconservative think tanks that admire his record of suspending habeas corpus for accused enemies of the state.
However, a fierce lobbying campaign by financial interests, budget hawks and Southern GOP lawmakers would imperil his nomination from the get-go.
Bank lobbyists, for instance, would leak a series of stories about quotes attributed to Lincoln showing what they would depict as a dangerously radical streak in his economic politics. These include a letter in which he is (inaccurately) said to have denounced the fact that “all wealth is aggregated in a few hands”; another letter in which he is alleged to have called bankers one of his two biggest enemies; and a speech in which historian Merill Peterson claims Lincoln had a “color of Marxism” in his thinking and ultimately became “the best friend labor ever had in the White House.”
Republican budget cutters, meanwhile, would cite Lincoln’s wartime spending on his era’s version of stimulus — railroad infrastructure, science research, land grant colleges — to assert that he cannot be trusted to control the debt. And, of course, Republicans representing Confederate states along with ideologically aligned Libertarians would accuse Lincoln of disrespecting state sovereignty and pushing an unfunded federal mandate when he issued his Emancipation Proclamation.
Alan: The following excerpt is from Lincoln's 1861 State of the Union Address: "In my present position I could scarcely be justified were I to omit raising a warning voice against this approach of returning despotism. It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life. Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless. Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Read more: State of the Union Address: Abraham Lincoln (December 3, 1861) — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/73.html#ixzz17XlRsbev
For more startling quotations by Republican luminaries, see: http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/01/politics-and-economics-101-curricula.html
On this webpage, the quotations follow the "reading list."
"Are Republicans Insane?" Best Pax Posts
http://paxonbothhouses.
http://paxonbothhouses.
"American Conservatives And Oppositional-Defiant Disorder"
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2013/09/arrested-development-american.html
"American Conservatives And Oppositional-Defiant Disorder"
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2013/09/arrested-development-american.html
"Conservatives Scare More Easily Than Liberals"
"Bank On It: The South Is Always Wrong"
"The Reign of Morons Is Here," Charles P. Pierce, The Atlantic
"The Reign of Morons Is Here," Charles P. Pierce, The Atlantic
"A Southerner Explains Tea Party Radicalism: The Civil War Is Not Over"
"People Who Watch Only Fox News
Know Less Than People Who Watch No News"
http://paxonbothhouses.
"Thomas Aquinas On American Conservatives' Continual Commission Of Sin"
http://paxonbothhouses.
"Is Perfectionism A Curse? Paul Ryan Tells The Truth"
http://paxonbothhouses.
"People Who Watch Only Fox News
Know Less Than People Who Watch No News"
http://paxonbothhouses.
"Thomas Aquinas On American Conservatives' Continual Commission Of Sin"
http://paxonbothhouses.
"Is Perfectionism A Curse? Paul Ryan Tells The Truth"
http://paxonbothhouses.
"Thomas Aquinas On American Conservatives' Continual Commission Of Sin"
http://paxonbothhouses.
"Is Perfectionism A Curse? Paul Ryan Tells The Truth"
http://paxonbothhouses.
My Mexican friend Lino says "The trouble with you Americans is that you don't know how to suffer."
Lincoln knew.
It was essential to his greatness.
Jefferson's Advocacy For Protection Of Jew, Gentile, Mahometan, Hindu And Infidel
Thomas Jefferson On The Persistent Inclination To Vilify Virtue
Thomas Jefferson On The Persistent Inclination To Vilify Virtue
10. Thomas Jefferson, D-Va.
The father of the Democratic Party, Jefferson’s professed love of the common man and his Louisiana Purchase success in ripping off France could certainly give his Cabinet nomination an initial political boost with Republicans. That said, his nomination would be quickly doomed the moment GOP activist groups leaked this Jefferson quote to the press:
“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
This would likely prompt a scathing Wall Street Journal editorial, and much hand-wringing from Wall Street-connected Democrats, ultimately resulting in calls for Jefferson to withdraw his nomination.
Long credited with being the ideological inspiration of modern conservatism, former Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater would have much trouble negotiating a successful Cabinet nomination with today’s Senate Republican Conference thanks to both his positions on GOP hot-button issues like gay marriage and abortion, and his late-in-life move to defend Democrats.
As the Washington Post reported in a 1994 article headlined “Barry Goldwater’s Left Turn,” the Arizona firebrand became “a gay rights activist” by “championing homosexuals serving in the military … work(ing) locally to stop businesses in Phoenix from hiring on the basis of sexual orientation (and) sign(ing) on as honorary co-chairman of a drive to pass a federal law preventing job discrimination against homosexuals.”
Additionally, in conjunction with his libertarian principles, he became a vocal supporter of protecting a woman’s right to choose, and, the Post notes, he applied “the full force of his cantankerous personality to frequent denunciations of the religious right and occasional defenses of Bill Clinton.”
So while the famous Rachel Maddow-Rand Paul interview reminds us that today’s GOP probably would have no problem with Goldwater refusing to support the 1964 Civil Rights Act (a move Goldwater later regretted), that same Republican Party would almost certainly have a problem with such an outspokenly pro-gay, pro-choice, anti-religious right Cabinet nominee from the Obama White House.
If there was a perfect résumé for a nominee to head the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), it has to be that of Santa Claus. As the head of an aid agency with global reach, he has solid firsthand experience managing production, logistics, transportation and distribution. This experience isn’t just from an office suite, either — he is the hands-on manager of a massive Elvish bureaucracy, personally pilots distribution runs every winter, and makes sure to give out aid based on the internationally recognized metrics of “naughty” and “nice.”
Yet, if Santa was nominated to head USAID, Republicans would filibuster his appointment based on suspicions that he is communist. As proof, they would cite not just his red uniform, but also the fact that his company seems more interested in delivering sloth-inducing “free stuff” to the 47 percent of Americans who don’t pay income tax than in motivating that 47 percent to start working for their own gifts. Additionally, the few GOP civil libertarians in Congress would raise objections to his distribution model’s reliance on chimney-focused breaking and entering schemes.
Pax On Both Houses: Compendium Of Ronald Reagan Posts
"Future Generations Will Despise Ronald Reagan. Here's Why"
7. Ronald Reagan, R-Calif.
Back in 2008, President Obama famously praised Reagan’s political skills, so it is no stretch to think a resurrected Reagan would be an obvious candidate for an Obama nomination, either in a domestic or foreign policy position. The problem is that Reagan would be a target of GOP ideologues in both arenas.
If Reagan was nominated for a domestic position, his record backing moderate immigration policies and proudly championing union rights would make him a lightning rod among the GOP and conservative media voices. Even if Obama sought to put Reagan in a purely economic position like Treasury secretary, the Gipper’s record raising taxes and pushing gun control would present serious GOP roadblocks for that nomination, what with Treasury’s respective roles on fiscal policy and in overseeing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
Likewise, if Reagan was nominated for a military or foreign policy post, he would be accused by today’s Republicans of “cutting and running” in the face of terrorists when he pulled U.S. troops out of Lebanon. Also, just as Republicans criticize Obama for being willing to negotiate with America’s enemies, Reagan would be hammered by the GOP for similarly negotiating with our enemies back in the 1980s.
credit: AP/David Goldman
Moderate Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney — as distinct from ultraconservative presidential candidate Mitt Romney — would easily fit into an Obama Cabinet, most likely at Treasury or Health and Human Services. But during confirmation hearings, that iteration would be labeled a business-hating menace by his party’s own senators.
After all, on taxes, the governor’s record was decidedly to the left of Obama’s, as the New York Times reported on his “administration relentlessly scour(ing) the tax code for loopholes.” Specifically, corporate tax loopholes. Yes, the crusade, reports the Times, “put him at odds with the values and expectations of the corporate world from which he came” — and it ultimately “extract(ed) hundreds of millions of corporate dollars to help close budget gaps in a state with a struggling economy.”
Similarly, Gov. Romney was the architect of what became the template for the Obama administration healthcare model. In confirmation hearings, then, Romney would be treated to the same insults that conservatives threw at Obama when they derided the president’s healthcare legislation as a form of socialism or Nazism.
Dwight Eisenhower: War Is Brutal, Futile, Stupid
5. Dwight Eisenhower, R-Kan.
With impeccable military credentials thanks to his tenure leading the United States military through World War II, the good general would seem to most Americans to be a sterling pick for defense secretary. But then today’s Republican lawmakers are not most Americans, and stopping Eisenhower’s nomination would quickly become the central headline-grabbing cause of neoconservatives, defense industry lobbyists and Fox News’ prime-time hosts.
That’s because despite Eisenhower’s seemingly unimpeachable record winning the most important military conflict in modern American history, his farewell address from his last governmental post would be portrayed by Republicans — and in particular, those who have never served in the military — as the ravings of a deranged left-wing peacenik whose pacificism would supposedly give aid and comfort to America’s enemies. Thanks to Eisenhower’s explicit criticism of the Military-Industrial Complex, the opposition campaign would be backed by the same defense industry interests who fear Hagel’s nomination to the same post.
Cheney's Lucid 1994 Rationale For NOT Invading Iraq. Conservatives "Must" See This
Cheney's Lucid 1994 Rationale For NOT Invading Iraq. Conservatives "Must" See This
"The Fall Of Iraq. Jawdropping Video Footage Of Cheney, Albright, Gen Clarke & Others"
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-fall-of-iraq-jawdropping-video.html
Dick Cheney Admits Preference For Torturing Innocent People If That's What It Takes
Dick Cheney On Torturing Prisoners: "I'd Do It Again In A Minute"
4. Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, R-Wyo.
You might think that President Obama asking Dick Cheney to once again serve as defense secretary would be met with cheers by Republican senators — and especially Cheney’s fellow Republican chicken hawks. But the cheers would undoubtedly turn to jeers when they learned that Obama was using his time machine to nominate the specific iteration of Cheney who served as defense secretary under President George H.W. Bush.
That’s because that version of Cheney would be considered a left-wing hippie by today’s standards. He was the defense secretary who oversaw the last major push for huge cuts to the defense budget. He was also the defense secretary who took to national television to deride neoconservative critics who insisted that to invade Baghdad and fully occupy Iraq would mire the United States in an unwinnable “quagmire.”
For such heresy, Republicans senators would treat Cheney as a dangerous Neville Chamberlain, all too willing to appease terrorists and endanger American national security.
Teddy Roosevelt: "Malefactors Of Great Wealth... Are Curses To The Country"
http://paxonbothhouses.
http://paxonbothhouses.
3. Teddy Roosevelt, R-N.Y.
Many Republicans may publicly claim that TR is their hero, but those same lawmakers would view that same TR as a villain if Obama brought him to 2012 to head either the Interior Department or a domestic economy-focused agency. Indeed, the talking points against such a Roosevelt nomination are already available at the Heritage Foundation’s website — no joke.
If he was nominated to head Interior, the GOP would lambaste him as a radical environmentalist waging, as Heritage puts it, an “attack on property rights.” That’s because, as the National Park Service reports, “Roosevelt used his authority to protect wildlife and public lands by creating the U.S. Forest Service and establishing 51 Federal Bird Reservations, 4 National Game Preserves, 150 National Forests, 5 National Parks, and enabling the 1906 American Antiquities Act which he used to proclaim 18 National Monuments.” In all Roosevelt protected — or as Republican senators would claim, “socialized” — 230 million acres of public land.
If, on the other hand, Roosevelt was nominated to run an economic agency like Treasury, Commerce or Labor, the GOP and business lobbyists would see a threat of epic proportions. With Roosevelt being one of the trust-busting estate-tax-championing leaders of the original progressive movement, the GOP would use his confirmation hearings to vilify him in Heritage-esque terms as a Manchurian Candidate aiming to secretly induce a “gradual transition to democratic socialism.”
No doubt, the Slate magazine headline about Roosevelt — “McCain’s Hero: More Socialist Than Obama!” — would be held up at his confirmation hearings as the single reason for senators to vote against him.
Jesus Walks Back Comments On Poor
http://paxonbothhouses.
Everything Jesus And The Apostles Had To Say About "The Rich" And "The Poor"
Everything Jesus And The Apostles Had To Say About "The Rich" And "The Poor"
2. Jesus Christ, I-NZ
credit: Jaroslav74 via Shutterstock
The nomination of Jesus Christ to any position in the Obama administration would be promptly met with outrage from Republicans who would inevitably label it an “in-your-face” pick.
Citing Jesus’ support for peace, his endorsement of the meek inheriting the Earth, his harsh criticism of the rich, his advocacy for the poor, his willingness to turn water into wine without making a profit, and his work giving out free healthcare to those in need, Republicans would hammer this bearded guy wearing sandals and a robe as both a pacifist agitator and a dangerous class warrior. They would also point to Chapters 2 and 4 of Acts as proof that he inspired his disciples to fight free market economics and, as scholar Greg Paul described it, take up the cause of “outright socialism of the type described millennia later by Marx.”
Holding up a thick Bible “teeming with unnecessary rules and regulations seeking to deter economic growth,” the GOP would argue that God is simply too much of a Big Government ideologue to be trusted with the power that comes with an executive branch office. As evidence, they would slam the 4th Commandment as a heavy-handed unfunded mandate dictating the employer-employee relationship; and they would castigate the 8th and 10th Commandments as thinly veiled assaults on free market capitalism.
Ultimately, the Almighty’s confirmation hearings would be dominated by a powerful poll-tested line used in one of the GOP’s SuperPac television ads against the nomination: “In God We Trust,” the talking point would go, “but we must also remember to trust and verify.”
David Sirota is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist, magazine journalist and the best-selling author of the books "Hostile Takeover," "The Uprising" and "Back to Our Future." E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment