This identification of “success” (i.e., wealth) with virtue, ancient as it is, has always laughably defied common human experience. The hardest working people on earth are those who are literally working to keep from starving. Relatively few of them live in the United States to begin with, and those who do are rarely Republicans. And pride over one’s “success,” particularly if it is expressed via conspicuous wealth, has been the target of stern warnings in virtually every major religious tradition.
The American Prospect:
The would-be first lady has a Junior League likeability—she’s sweet and charming, if a bit removed from the average life of most Americans. The random cry of “I love women” was at least overt and obvious in its effort to close the gender gap the GOP currently faces. Even her nervousness had its appeal Tuesday night—she delivered her speech a little too fast, proving once again that she’s human.
But Ann Romney had one job to do: Give us some reason—any reason—to believe her husband isn’t some cold-hearted automaton. On that count, the speech failed entirely.
Elizabeth Warren at DKos:
Coming out of the Great Depression, America was at a crossroads. The future of our economy – and our democracy – was at stake.
We made a decision together as a country: To invest in ourselves, in our kids, and in our future. For nearly half a century, that’s just what we did.
And it worked. For nearly 50 years, as our country got richer, our families got richer – and as our families got richer, our country got richer.
And then about 30 years ago, our country moved in a different direction. New leadership attacked wages. They attacked pensions. They attacked health care. They attacked unions. And now we find ourselves in a very different world from the one our parents and grandparents built. We are now in a world in which the rich skim more off the top in taxes and special deals, and they leave less and less for our schools, for roads and bridges, for medical and scientific research – less to build a future.
Gaius Publius at Americablog:
But back to this one — crossing lines of conscience. At what point does a generally good office-holder lose your support? What if they*:
- Stole from the office lotto pool?
- Had sex with a colleague in the back room?
- Had sex with an intern in the back room?
- Tortured frogs?
- Hit a spouse?
- Committed murder?
At the lesser “crimes” you overlook the bad for the good. But at some point in that list, if your candidate were guilty, you would not be able to support them*. He or she has crossed your “line of conscience.”
Things didn’t use to be this bad. They became radically worse when Republican Governors and Republican state legislatures in Arizona, Alabama, Georgia and a number of other Republican states (and not a single Democratic one) began passing bills that were publically and proudly described by their authors and supporters as being designed “to make life so miserable for illegals that they would pack their bags and go back where they came from.“
They succeeded spectacularly in making life miserable. In Alabama, Mexican and other Latino parents who did not have papers became afraid to send their children to school even when their children had been born in the U.S. Many became afraid to go downtown to pay their water bills, and began to get along without running water. They became afraid to go to work in many of the jobs they previously held where document checks and local police visits have become extensive. Many Latino parents, both legal and illegal, have became afraid to take their kids to a park or a museum or a library for fear they would be harassed.
This “make their lives miserable” strategy has filtered up from the Republican-controlled states to become essentially the official national Republican agenda. It is now enshrined in the Republican platform with the delicate euphemism “humane procedures to encourage illegal aliens to return home voluntarily.” Romney (the so-called “moderate” Republican candidate) came up with the cynical phrase “self-deportation” to describe it. “Self-deportation.” What a charming little phrase. By including the muscular word “deportation” it suggests a macho, “get-tough” kind of attitude but is at the same time so much nicer than saying “we’re gonna make their lives so miserable that they leave” even though, in practice, it means the same thing.
Finally, from All Things Democratic:
By no means am I denigrating the work done by the Salvation Army, nor any not-for-profit providing such services. However, conservatives need to acknowledge not only the breadth of government-run assistance programs but their efficiency, as well.
SNAP versus the Salvation Army is a microcosm of the larger debate about the role and proper function of government – a debate in which one of the sides believes that the free market always wins.
Well, in this case, as in many others…Atlas Debunked.