Bulworth

Bulworth
1998

I enjoy certain political movies. Bulworth is one of them. The movie stars Warren Beatty as Jay Billington Bulworth, a rank and file Democrat who is embarking on his last Senatorial campaign in California. The trailer shows some of the more confrontational aspects of the movie, like when Bulworth tells a black audience that they’ll never vote anything but Democrat and they don’t matter. He also tells a Jewish audience that he panders to them for money.

The movie ends up being about political pandering, insurance lobbyists and the statement that “socialism” in medicine is the only way to go. The cringe-worthy moments involve race relations. Beatty does a number of absolutely terrible raps. Plus, he suggests that America needs “a voluntary, free-spirited, open-ended program of procreative racial deconstruction.” I won’t even explain that one.

The funny thing is that this decade old movie may be more relevant today than in 1998. Our national health care system will now serve to funnel people into the for-profit insurance system. Jewish voters are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the Democratic party. The black community is supporting a black president who has done less for African-Americans than many white presidents. Senator Bulworth tells it like it is, and it made him a sensation. I wonder what happens if other candidates did the same.

This is wrong


I haven’t been covering the Wall Street protests because I consider them an exercise in futility. But using mace or pepper spray on unarmed protestors who are not violently resisting is excessive use of force.


Flashback – The Heidi Game


The Raiders (1-1) are playing the Jets (2-0) in Oakland. Y’all keep the noise down in here.

This is an open thread.

BTW – Buffalo and New England are tied 31-31 with 1:37 left


Obama channels a black preacher


How come Obama only talks like this to black audiences?

“Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes,” he said, his voice rising as applause and cheers mounted. “Shake it off. Stop complainin’. Stop grumblin’. Stop cryin’. We are going to press on. We have work to do.”



Herman Cain – contender or flavor of the week?


Byron York:

Meanwhile, dozens, maybe hundreds of GOP delegates who came to Orlando intending to support Perry were having second thoughts. They’d all been in the room for the Fox News-Google debate on Thursday night and were dismayed by Perry’s performance. Actually, more than dismayed — some were insulted by Perry’s accusation that people who don’t support his immigration positions are heartless. Still, they didn’t immediately drop the Texas governor, did not immediately say, “That’s it — I’m outta here.” Rather, in the 40 hours after the end of the debate, their minds were a little more open than they had been before. And most were specifically a little more open to Cain, who impressed them during the debate and had made a number of impromptu appearances around the hotels adjacent to the Orange County Convention Center.

But even on Saturday, Perry might still have recovered some support with an inspiring speech before the voting. Instead, he headed off to Michigan, and it was Cain who delivered a barn-burner that brought at least seven standing ovations from the delegates. Wavering Perry delegates became Cain voters.

“I couldn’t make up my mind,” said Thelma, from Panama City, after the vote. “It was the speech that made the hair stand up on my arms. It wasn’t a tingle down my leg — it was an emotional excitement that this man knows how to get our country out of trouble.”

“I went in with this on my shirt,” said Melissa from Panama City, pointing to her PERRY sticker. “And I voted for Cain.”

“I liked Cain, but I wasn’t sure he could win,” said Zena, from Washington County. “But after I heard this, I thought it doesn’t matter if he wins or not — I am for this man. He was awesome.”

Multiply Thelma, Melissa, and Zena a few hundred times and you have what happened inside the convention hall. As he walked around the enormous room, Scott Plakon began to suspect that something was up. “Supporters of the other camps, some who had buttons on, came up to me and said, ‘I voted for your guy,’” Plakon says. In the end, it wasn’t even close.

What had happened? In the days before the vote, nearly all the delegates who voted for Cain either said or heard someone else say this: “I love Herman Cain, but he can’t get elected.” The assumption that Cain can’t win the Republican nomination was a serious obstacle in their minds. But at some point late Friday and early Saturday, the delegates overcame that obstacle. Some concluded that since they had heard so many people speak well of Cain, he could indeed win, if everyone who liked him would actually vote for him. Others remained skeptical of Cain’s ultimate chances but decided to send the message that they would choose candidates based on conservative principles, and not on perceived electability.

Once the delegates got over the can’t-get-elected hurdle, a close contest became a landslide for Herman Cain.

One other factor should not be underestimated. Yes, the delegates liked what Cain had to say. But how he said it was just as important. With his deep, booming voice and a style that any motivational speaker would envy, Cain can give a rousing speech, and he gave several of them during four days in Orlando. No other candidate, frontrunner or back of the pack, could match him. It’s not an exaggeration to say that his power as an orator sealed the deal for hundreds of delegates. They believed Cain was speaking to them from the heart, and they were carried away by it. As with the Democratic primary contests of 2007 and 2008, never underestimate the power of a stirring speech.


Michele Bachmann rose and fell. Rick Perry rose and is falling. Will Herman Cain suffer the same fate?

In the end there can be only one.


You can’t win with a bigot


If the Republicans nominate a black man that would prove they aren’t racists, right? Right?

Wrong:

Apparently, the Republicans are doing one of these stupid Straw Polls in Florida today. The problem is, the base hates all the candidates, which makes picking someone in the Straw Poll a bit of a challenge. Byron York speculates that Herman Cain might do better than expected because no one feels like voting for Rick Perry after he called them heartless. This makes sense to me because the most obvious thing to do if someone calls you out on your heartless hatred of Latinos is to vote for the black guy. ‘See? I’m not a racist who thinks minorities are biting into too much of my paycheck. I’m color blind.’


big·ot
noun \ˈbi-gət\
Definition of BIGOT: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance


I haz idea!


I was thinking about this article by Joe Nocera that The Klown discussed yesterday. This is the part I want to talk about:

But if we could just stop playing gotcha for a second, we might realize that federal loan programs — especially loans for innovative energy technologies — virtually require the government to take risks the private sector won’t take. Indeed, risk-taking is what these programs are all about. Sometimes, the risks pay off. Other times, they don’t. It’s not a taxpayer ripoff if you don’t bat 1.000; on the contrary, a zero failure rate likely means that the program is too risk-averse. Thus, the real question the Solyndra case poses is this: Are the potential successes significant enough to negate the inevitable failures?

I have a hard time answering “no.” Most electricity today is generated by coal-fired power plants, operated by monopoly, state-regulated utilities. Because they’ve been around so long, and because coal is cheap, these plants have built-in cost advantages that no new technology can overcome without help. The federal guarantees help lower the cost of capital for technologies like solar; they help spur innovation; and they help encourage private investment. These are all worthy goals.

To say “no” is also to cede the solar panel industry to China, which last year alone provided some $30 billon in subsidies for its solar industry. Over all, the American solar industry is a big success story; it now employs more people than either steel or coal, and it’s a net exporter.

But solar panel manufacturing — a potential source of middle-class jobs, and an important reason the White House was so high on Solyndra, which made its panels in Fremont, Calif. — is another story. Not so long ago, China made 6 percent of the world’s solar panels. Now it makes 54 percent, and leads the world in solar panel manufacturing. Needless to say, the U.S. share of the market has shrunk. The only way America can manufacture competitive solar panels is to come up with innovative technologies that the Chinese can’t replicate. Like, for instance, Solyndra’s.


Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Nocera is correct and the government should be investing in “innovative technologies.” Is the best way to do that giving out loans at rock-bottom interest rates? Even if everything goes right all we get is our money back.

What if we did it the way most investors do and bought stock in the companies? Then if the company flops we would lose money (which we would anyway) but if it succeeds we could realize a profit. The profits from the investments that succeed would offset the losses on the ones that fail.

As stockholders we would not only have rights we would also have a say in management decisions. We could appoint a trustee with expertise in that field and no personal financial interest to act as our representative. This person would have to report to both the White House and Congress.

What do you think?



To our conservative friends


Obama is NOT a socialist. He’s not a liberal either. He’s not even a progressive (that’s a liberal with no principles.)

Want proof? Take a look at Obamacare.

A socialist would have nationalized healthcare by making all clinics and hospitals government-owned and all doctors, nurses and other health care providers into government employees.

A liberal would have enacted single-payer, aka “Medicare for all.” A progressive would have created a “public option” which would be a publicly owned health insurance program that competes with private health insurance companies.

Obamacare is none of these. Obamacare requires individuals to purchase health care insurance from private companies. While it contains a provision that says you can’t be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions it also doesn’t allow you to opt out and doesn’t put any cap on premiums.

Health insurance companies currently keep about $.30 out of every dollar they take in. Thanks to Obamacare they are going to make billions.

There is a term for this kind of government-guaranteed profit making – “crony capitalism.”

So please stop calling him a socialist or a liberal.



Sunday Morning Open Thread


What are your plans for today?

I plan to get drunk, mow the lawn and watch football (not necessarily in that order.)



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 273 other followers