Much More than a Dime’s Worth of Difference!

the FDR dime

Southern segregationist George Wallace accused Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon of wanting to radically desegregate the South saying, “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties.” On the segregation issue Wallace was correct.

Lately, frequent commenter UptheFlag has thrown that phrase in my face, but surely he really doesn’t believe that Wallace phrase is correct today,  especially now that the once-Grand Old Party has been taken over by the den of thieves who currently call themselves Republicans.

In the good old days, the GOP  had a wide variety of points of view about governance including both ends of the political spectrum.  Today’s GOP has been purged of all but those clinging to the right end.  Not only that, but today’s Republican Party has little interest in actual governance, preferring to cut the strings of management and watching the Ship of State float adrift with as few restrictions as possible.

It doesn’t take too  much intelligence or wisdom to ‘operate’ an untethered ship which may be why today’s GOP attracts dull-witted, brash ideologues rather than statesmen and leaders.

It also doesn’t attract ethmic minorities to its ranks.  Not one African-American sits in Congress among the Republican delegation. Only three of the 26 Latinos/Hispanics in Congress are Republican. Out of 92 women altogether in Congress, there are 23 GOP women.  Today’s GOP truly is a white man’s party.

Dime’s worth of difference?

Shall I go on?

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “Much More than a Dime’s Worth of Difference!

  1. It’s Coke and Pepsi.

    But I do find that the Democrats are more to my taste since they avoid the abortion and religious issue which the Republicans have taken on.

  2. That ‘religious issue’ which you reference kept George W. and Dick ‘Dick’ in the WH for those 8 miserable years. Fundamentalist [c]hristians, and all…

  3. Hello Muddy,
    I was giving this subject much thought here of late as I was thinking of doing a posting on this same subject. In my own lifetime, I have seen “supposedly” ground swell political movements come and go. For the most part, these political movements are based on radical extreme viewpoint movements that they soon get tiresome, fade and die away leaving the baggage of the 20/20 hind site on how incorrect, ill-informed, and naive the followers were with their viewpoints.

    First there was Joe McCarthy’s movement was a movement to expunge communist from infiltrating the lives of everyday, good, God fearing Christians, living and guiding this our great country. It was during this time that the phrase, “One nation under God” was added to our Pledge of Allegiance. This was to make sure all knew that we were different than those, “Godless Communist!!” But as we all know, this McCarthy Movement just imploded on its own power and soon became a “Witch Hunt” where innocent people were harmed. For being so GOD professing, the teachings of “Do unto others as you would have then do unto you” became the first victim and causality of this McCarthy Political Movement.

    Then came George Wallace’s political movement which included his 1968 and 1972 political platform that were based mainly in populist resentment against what were perceived as the national Democratic Party’s leftward tilt and its supposed alienation from middle-American voters and values. But in reality was nothing more than a radical platform that the Federal Government was trying to control our lives and we needed to return to a more of States Rights allowing the Southern States to decide for themselves their own Civil Rights Policies and return to the Segregation Policies that had worked so well for so long in the South.

    Of course let’s not forget Ross Perot’s political movement which lasted from 1992 to 1996 and his candidacy for President. With such declared policies as balancing the Federal Budget, firm pro-choice stance, expansion of the war on drugs, ending corporation’s outsourcing of U.S. jobs, supported gun control, belief in protectionism on trade, advocating the Environmental Protection Agency. But the true and lasting aspect of Ross Perot’s legacy was his Electronic Direct Democracy via “Electronic Town Hall meeting that most candidates use today. Because Ross Perot was not as radical in his viewpoints as the others I have mentioned, he became a potential candidate that polled roughly even with the two major party candidates.

    Now to date we have the Tea Party Movement which has not real leader with no real constant political platform. This movement means different things to different people who claim to be Teabaggers. When asked what the Tea Party Movement is about, you will get as many different answers as there were people asked. The only common denominator is outrage, hate, uninformed viewpoints, but a conviction that sometimes quickly becomes inappropriate by the use of racial slurs and violent actions to others.

    So Muddy, to conclude this latest Teabagger Movement too will wither and die under its own extremism over time but the question is at what cost before it does so. That now is the big dollar question my friend.

  4. OK, M_R, where is the teeth in the proposed Financial Reform bill? Open minded commentators all say that the Republicans want no bill, while the Democrats, under Dodd, want only a weak bill.

    Better yet, where is Obama’s FDR backbone? With all the Goldman Sachs, Citicorps, and other investment and banking personalities in his immediate administration, is there any wonder why he goes to Wall Street yesterday? Did FDR ever go to Wall Street? Of course not, he took them on and said I will be your master, and he did and he was. This continued until the Republicans and the Democrats gutted his reforms which lasted over 5 decades in the 1990s aided by a Democratic President, Clinton. The pockets of Republicans and Democrats alike are stuffed with Wall Street money. Certainly, M_R, you must know and admit it.

    It seems to me that we have to differentiate what is important to Wall Street. Wall Street in its broadest term are the elites, is the system. Wall Street and the monied interests are the controlling forces in our government. They are the root cause of our problems and the inability to make effective change. Their money fills the campaign committees of democrat and republican legislators. This is where there is no “dimes worth of difference” between the two groups. Wall Street has no interest in what minority groups and in what number they are represented in the political parties. Neither does Wall Street care about arguments over religion and fundamentalism or abortion, or end of life decisions. My point is that Wall Street “lets” legislators make most of the decisions of governance, but the crucial decisions on money are tightly controlled by Wall Street, and a Democrat or a present day Republican carrying that identification are told and expected to protect the interests of Wall Street. It took Wall Street 60 years to undo the protections for our economy, but they succeeded with their paid off democrat and republican legislators. HOw many democratic senators voted with Graham to end Glass-Steagle?

  5. Actually, I think had the dems run someone other than Gore and Kerry things may have been different.
    With Gore it was a duel between two idiots and with Kerry it was an idiot vs a really bad self important liar with “a plan” he would never really explain.
    McCain? He was such an unelectable jerkoff that my only rationale for the GOP running him was that he had to be owed a favor for something.

    As for a dimes worth of difference, we still have the same 2 headed animal eating away at the treasury and the constitution without any fear of public rebuke.
    Who’s going to complain? The press? The press is afraid to rock the boat because interviewing the president used to be an honor and now they’ll be excluded from interviews and questions if they ask a hardball question and retard their career or lose advertising dollars for the network.
    The tea partiers? They’ve been smeared since day one in the press.
    The voters? The party line voters won’t be swayed by anything illegal, obscene or, unconstitutional in which the president or, congress engages in. And the swing voters are angry up until 5 minutes before election time when their short attention spans kick into overdrive!

    Laci, our nation has bigger issues than abortion and religion. I’m not pro-abortion but, it’s not my business to tell anyone they can’t have one. And, regardless of how much any jesus nut has wasted their breath on me, my beliefs are still mine and they’re getting no donations.

    On the flip side, I don’t care for liberals who see abortion as just another form of birth control. And liberals who have simply traded the jesus freak’s brand of religion and replaced it with the government as his / her’s “higher power”….and instead of “convincing me” to “donate”…instead legislate it out of my pocket via their congressional “apostles”.

  6. Engineer- thanks for the great historical-political references regarding ‘radical extreme’ movements here in America. Those Tea Party-ites are but one more in an ugly line.

    Yesterday the History Channel presented a story about the assasination of Kennedy and it showed black and white film of angry Texans with their “Yankee Go Home!” signs and other racially-charged slogans about his “liberal” policies. and then there were those yellow fliers that were placed under the wipers of the cars charging that Kennedy was “Wanted for Treason!”

    The radically extreme! Always an anti-democracy movement.

    uptheFlag- OK, M_R, where is the teeth in the proposed Financial Reform bill? OK, UTF, first you show me the Republican Finance Reform bill and while you are at it, show me the GOP health care bill.

  7. Hello Sepp,
    Speaking from the Republican point here, you are correct that John McCain, much like honoring Bob Dole with his Republican Presidential nomination but all knew that he was not going to defeat Bill Clinton’s second term. Both were the Presidential candidate of sacrificial choice in their bid of the office in their respective years. All knew that the Republicans were not going to win the Presidency in 2008, including Karl Rove; after all they had just lost big two years before in Congress and Senate, that they would at least honor John McCain as their choice the Republican Candidate.

    It was kind of an apology and to honor him for his long service not only as a decorated Navy service man and prisoner of war, but in the way that Karl Rove, the chief political strategist for George W. Bush, “Swift Boated” McCain in South Carolina. In the 2000 Republican primaries, McCain had won and place well in those primaries but the extreme right wing of the Republican Party lead by Karl Rove started a smear campaign against McCain. Bush had taken Iowa but McCain had taken New Hampshire. As the South Carolina primary came closer, rumoring lies such as McCain was the father of an out of wedlock black child, and that he was left mentally unstable from his years of being torched in a Viet Nam prisoner cell, started to emerge.

    Truth being the child in question did exist but not quite as they said. The McCains had adopted a baby girl out of Bangladesh. Her skin was just dark enough to make a “half black, or half McCain” plausible to those of South Carolina and when you repeat a lie often enough, it soon has validity as being fact.
    Just as the truth will eventually come out, years later while making an appearance at Troy University in Alabama, Karl Rove was asked, “Do you think people of South Carolina found it attractive to hear those kind of charges made against John McCain?” Karl Rove replied with a question throwing the responsibility blame back on the people of South Carolina for their stupidity with, “Or did the people of South Carolina respond to it as they should have?”

    This “Swift Boating” campaign worked so well against John McCain in the 2000 primary, that they repeated it once again in 2004 against John Kerry, a well decorated Navy Viet Nam War veteran.

  8. Well I think President Obama is walking a tightrope as the county’s first black president. I think he views his place and duty in history as laying down a foundation of tolerance and competence for minority presidents to follow. He’s said as much in interviews, that the state is like a huge ocean liner, and you can’t just hold the helm hard over and expect it to turn on a “dime”. So I expect the vast majority of his accomplishments are going to be legislatively weak compromises between the political factions tugging at him. I think as a citizen looking “for change”, it’s discouraging, but I understand the dynamic. I don’t think it would be politically possible for Obama to govern from a radical perspective as President Roosevelt did. Roosevelt was a white elitist himself, from the very culture he was radically changing. And if you remember, there was a huge backlash against FDR’s policies from Wal-street – even an attempted coup. (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Coup.htm)

    In a way, that’s why I admire President Obama – He’s in there doing the job, he’s governing, he’s making efforts all the time. He’s governing with his finger to the wind and putting pressure on where he can. He probably governms WAY more to the right than a classic Republican like Eisenhower, but in Today’s political climate, Eisenhower would be a “filthy lib”.

    That reminds me of a great story. I remember reading in Eisenhower’s biography about his take on the “Bonus Army” insurection. After WW1, congress refused to pay bonuses it had promised to veterans and so these out of work veterans congregated in a huge shanty in Washington DC. Hoover ordered MacAurthor to disburse the veterans because he (and Macaurthor) feared it was a “marxist plot”. I think, Eisenhower was Macaurthors chief of staff or some kind of leason officer at the time, and after the whole debacle (Patton was in there as well, chasing down homeless veterans on his horse, slapping their asses with the broad side of his sword). Eisenhower said that he had never been more ashamed that he wore the Uniform of a US soldier that day. The event deeply effected him for years to come.

    http://www.thebonusarmy.com/news.html

  9. “Texans with their “Yankee Go Home!” signs and other racially-charged slogans about his “liberal” policies.”

    Lol…how times have changed. If Kennedy ran today, the liberal left would be the ones carrying signs telling that rightwing extremist Kennedy to go home!

  10. If Kennedy ran today, the liberal left would be the ones carrying signs telling that rightwing extremist Kennedy to go home!

    Fantasy, Sepp, pure fantasy. I’ve noticed that you often project twisted events in your talking points, transposing one person/event to another at a different time and place. That transposition exists only in theory, but it can not be transposed exactly- only Walt Disney can do that.

  11. steve- thanks for bring up that ugly scene of the ‘bonus Army’ and the disgrace of our military. I had forgotten about that episode [perhaps willingly as it was too ugly to carry around].

    Last evening on PBS/NOW, they reviewed the two Bush wars that they covered since 2001 [NOW is leaving the air and its final program is next week]. They replayed several episodes on the awful treatment of the Iraq veterans as well as the trauma and hurt suffered by families and the soldiers during that terrible ‘stop loss’ policy of the Army, resulting in 4 and 5 redeployments. And, perhaps worst of all, the TBI suffered by 19% of the returning soldiers. The VA was not at all equipped to handle that and the enormous number of cases of PTSD.

    That is our present-day ‘bonus Army’ episode- a shameful open wound in our history books. There was one line in the program that bears repeating, said by a soldier in Iraq. “The United States isn’t at war, the Army is. The United States is at the mall.”

  12. Muddy, I challenge you to go back and study Kennedy’s platform he ran on and how his administration operated…and then get back to me as to how TODAY’s liberal would NOT run him out of town on a rail!

    Kennedy was a complete ANTI-communist…as opposed to today’s libs who seem to be embracing Khrushev’s mantra of burying us from within.

    Kennedy’s “liberalism” by today’s standards would put make him a Republican.
    “Ask not what your country can do for you” has turned into “Demand the country to cater to you!”
    Since 1960, we’ve gone from having a government that’s goal was to keep the totalianism of communism OFF our shores…

    To having a government infested with the same types of communist and socialist vermin Kennedy was keeping at bay.

    So, yes, I’ll stand by my oppinion until you can show me what Kennedy and the neo-liberals have in common today.

  13. Steve, Eisenhower didn’t “govern with his finger to the wind” by nationalizing everything. THAT is what dictators like Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Chavez, etc did / do and call it “governing”.

    The only thing Eisenhower “borrowed” from Hitler was the idea for interstate highways.
    Obama seems to be borrowing from everyone else on the list…and his “governing finger” seems to be his middle finger most of the time. He does have a talent for being BUSH’s successor without having the condemnation for doing the same shady crap.

Comments are closed.