GOP Senators OK With Race-Based Sotomayor Attacks:Silence is Acceptance

Generally silence is not considered acceptance unless you receive a benefit from your failure to speak, however, the GOP it seems what to have it both ways. On the one hand, they are allowing such Republican luminaries as Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich to falsely characterize Judge Sotamoyor a "racist", while others in the party call for a respectful debate over her nomination with the other.

In essences the Republicans seem to want the benefit of saying crap on conservative radio; accepting the benefit, while returning the proverbial box unopened. Sorry, if you will not strongly denounce and call for a stop to this language, then you are accepting the benefit—your silence or as Jeff Sessions put it " I am not going to baby-sit conservative commentators," can be tacit acceptance to the language.

I am not shocked, but I am disturbed by the volatile tactic as it will allow Republicans to use the most vile and incendiary language possible. The biggest problem I have with the whole Sotomayor nomination debate is the hypocrisy of Rush Limbaugh, who made the following statement on his weekly rant about Judge Sotomayor, "She brings a form of bigotry or racism to the court." Oh wait, let me in his words "soften" that a bit reverse racist, as if putting a pillow around a Molotov cocktail will make it burn less hot.

I was floored by the sheer hypocrisy, because this is a man who called the current President of the United States, a grown man; a "man-child," that is, a synonym for a "boy," and a "magic negro." Yet he is going to talk about someone being racist. However, based on these tactics I believe the GOP are opening themselves up to a potential landmine.

Think about it....Are Rush and the Republicans playing the Reverse Race Card? Do they want to open up the Racial debate with some of the Racially-and Sexism-charged excrement that Rush's mouth that the GOP fails to denounce?

Like I said Silence is Acceptance.

Credit Card Industry Aims to Profit From Sterling Payers

The feeding frenzy is beginning as a recession causes the U.S. Government, for the first time in years to protect Main Street American interests from the unending greed of creditors and Corporate America. It is because finally the Congress and the current administration are actually trying to help consumers. Now they have decided if I cannot have one, then I will take the other.


In their desperation the Credit Card Industry is turning on their once favored child; the cardholders who paid their bills on time. In addition, the Banks are blaming the favored child and others for the problems they helped cause in the first place. I did not use to be this way, as reported by Andrew Martin, in the New York Times:


“Banks used to give credit cards only to the best consumers and charge them a flat interest rate of about 20 percent and an annual fee. But with the relaxing of usury laws in some states, and the ready availability of credit scores in the late 1980s, banks began offering cards with a variety of different interest rates and fees, tying the pricing to the credit risk of the cardholder.

That helped push interest rates down for many consumers, but they soared for riskier cardholders, who became a significant source of revenue for the industry. The recent economic downturn challenged that formula, and banks started dumping the riskiest customers and lowering their credit limits in earnest as the recession accelerated. Now, consumers who pay their bills off every month are issuing a rising chorus of complaints about shortened grace periods, new hidden fees and higher interest rates.”


No one told you to rely on a business model built on the greedy practices of “ high penalties” “annual fees” and “interest rate hikes” ---you gave people to had dodgy credit and bet on them failing. I mean the industry cannot even feign ignorance, because of the readily available credit reports (DO NOT GET ME STARTED ON THOSE).

Now you are going to punish the good child, who did what you asked and beat them mercilessly with annual fees and penalties, while tell them it’s their fault you had to beat them…..I know that is a harsh criticism but it is a true one. Ok, here is a better one, its loan sharking in a sense; because you are hoping, the person will fail so you can get even more money and chain the person to you forever by paying outrageous interest.


However, this is only the beginning of what I foresee as a huge challenge for the Obama administration. Credit Company’s are culling the herd of risky cardholders they are raising the interests rates, and the Senate handed them a huge victory by not capping interest rates, so banks can continue to lift them, albeit at a slower pace and with greater disclosure.


Hmm, I think I will call that one a draw. Banks are already capitalizing on the opening though as they are expected to look at reviving annual fees, curtailing cash-back and other rewards programs and charging interest immediately on a purchase instead of allowing a grace period of weeks, according to bank officials and trade groups” …


In my book, such actions will only shrink revenue from existing cardholders, so the argument that that increased regulation will cause Banks to issue few credit cards at a greater cost to current cardholders is bunk. Do not believe the BS, this is a $20 billion industry so I doubt it will just go away. Money is green and they will find a way to get it. The cards will flow.

What gets me is that credit card companies appear to be showing the flawed rationality of career felons or carjackers , in my view, and on that note I will end with the following statement in the New York Times,


Austan Goolsbee, an economic adviser to President Obama said that while the credit card industry had the right to make a reasonable profit as long as its contracts were in plain language and rule-breakers were held accountable, its current practices were akin to “a series of carjackings.”

“The card industry is giving the argument that if you didn’t want to be carjacked, why weren’t you locking your doors or taking a different road?” Mr. Goolsbee said.

Michael Steele: Gay Marriage Is Bad For Small Businesses-Michael Steele: The Man with the Plan

I was watching some old episodes of the Tudors, the hit Showtime Original about King Henry VIII the other day, and I began to thumb through a few books on the politics of his reign, particularly Protestant Reformation of the Church in England to the Church of England. I decided to bone-up on the ruthless efficiency of King Henry VIII in collaborating with Protestant Reformers to bring about his desires for a male heir, as I enjoy fact and fiction. The next night, I was hanging out with my Capitol Crew, a group of Latte Liberals, Cappuccino Conservatives, Blue Dogs, and Red Rocks ( the name I use for the ultra-right), and somehow we began talking about Michael Steele and his “tactics” of his “master plan” to rebrand the GOP, much to the chagrin of my Conservative colleagues. Nevertheless, through all the political hoop-la and banter, a book on my friends coffee table caught my eye, The Prince by Machiavelli, that is when I said it….are we underestimating Steele?

Could Michael Steele really have a real plan to reform the GOP; are all his antics a superfuge for a Machiavellian scheme of a Henry VII-like plan to partner with moderates and bring about his desires to expand the base into new area? Then I saw the article Gay Marriage Is Bad For Small Business, on the Huffington Post, and the answer was plain…H—NO!!!

I mean come on ; —now this is Keith Olbermann WTF moment guys.

Republicans can reach a broader base by recasting gay marriage as an issue that could dent pocketbooks as small businesses spend more on health care and other benefits, GOP Chairman Michael Steele said Saturday. Steele said that was just an example of how the party can retool its message to appeal to young voters and minorities without sacrificing core conservative principles. Steele said he used the argument weeks ago while chatting on a flight with a college student who described herself as fiscally conservative but socially liberal on issues like gay marriage.

Steele made the further blunder-filled and illogical analogy of gay marriage as follows:

“Now all of a sudden I’ve got someone who wasn’t a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for,” Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. “So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money.”

1. Mr. Steele I would love to see your marriage. I mean did you have this sentiment when you proposed, or did it hit you after saying I do? I mean lets take your statement and turn it around…

“ Now all of sudden I’ve got someone who wasn’t a spouse before, I had no responsibility for her, and she is now getting claimed as my spouse that I now have a financial responsibility for..So how do I pay for that? You cost me money”

I can answer your question quite easily Mr. Steele:

1. It is called getting a job to support your family, or in the modern age both people getting jobs to support their family. I do understand that its hard in the current recession that Bush left us, but we all have to make sacrifices to live. Yes, Mr. Chairman it does cost money to live, and provide for one’s spouse but did you think pennies would fall from heaven? I mean did you not shell out money for the license that was an indication of some type of cost involved in the decision.

Come on Mr. Chairman. I do not know what to say about your continued antics, they are getting old and cliche. What’s next, Sir? I do know one thing this is not a plan by any stretch of the imagination; its a cluster flop( I would have used the other “f” word but I am being nice.)

You cannot claim that every foul-up and foible is part of your master plan, unless your plan is to fail and fail miserably. You cannot comprimise to modernize your party, either you are going to moderate the message or you are not. I got to tell you that many in your party have expressed the sentiment that they will not bend to the moderates, RINO, etc….. So what is the plan Mr. Chairman?

However, I do agree with this statement though about the “hip-hop makeover “You don’t have to wear your pants cut down to here or the big bling” that is true but you do have to act competent Mr. Chairman. I truly hope for the sake of our multi-party system this final word figures into your plan…

competency…

One more thing, Since you are hell bent on having a more modern hip-hop makeover of your party—Please remember hip-hop, true hip-hop was not about “bling-bling”, etc…it was about positivity, self-awareness, and empowerment through education and morality. In saying this I would urge you to listen to “Common- I use to Love Her” to start and maybe—you will be on the right track.