.
.
.
PHONY AS A THREE DOLLAR BILL: Supervisor Shawn Nelson, a self-described “Republican with lots of libertarian views” and “grandfather of the tea party in Orange County”–a movement that supposedly favors “limited government” and “taxpayer accountability”–endorsed Rick Perry during his recent visit, ignoring the fact the Texas governor has a track record of giving away millions in public funds to corporations.
According to the Los Angeles Times, Rick Perry, the Governor of Texas and wannabe Republican presidential nominee, made a campaign stop at Roger’s Gardens in Newport Beach, a city that is home to mega-billionaires like Donald Bren, a swindler who got filthy rich from a real estate boom created by the massive Cold War-era expansion of California’s taxpayer-subsidized defense and aerospace industries.
OC Supervisor Shawn Nelson, a self-described “Republican with lots of libertarian views” and “grandfather of the tea party in Orange County“–a movement that supposedly favors “limited government” and “taxpayer accountability”–endorsed Perry during his visit, ignoring the fact the Texas governor has a lengthy track record of giving away hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds to multi-billion dollar corporations.
Last month, Glenn Garvin, a libertarian columnist for the daily newspaper, the Miami Herald of Florida, wrote an opinion piece dubbed “Rick Perry–king of corporate welfare,” noting the Texas governor has far more in common with Democratic president Barack Obama than most people believe. Both men, he observes, “see taxpayer money as a giant trough for feeding their political pals“:
As governor of Texas, Perry controls hundreds of millions of dollars in state handouts to corporations for “job creation and economic development.” Not surprisingly, it turns out that the funds are especially good at developing one particular sector of the Texas economy: Perry’s campaign funds.
The Texas Observer revealed earlier this year that of the 55 companies that have dipped into the $345 million Texas Enterprise Fund controlled by Perry, 20 have been have donated money either directly to Perry’s political campaign funds or to the Republican Governors Association, his Washington posse.
We’re not talking chump change: The Observer counted donations over $2 million. Meanwhile, The Dallas Morning News looked into the Texas Emerging Technology Fund, another of the taxpayer teats under Perry’s control, and found eight companies that received $16 million in subsidies who, totally coincidentally, donated $1.4 million to the governor’s campaign.
In addition, Garvin, a Contributing Editor at Reason magazine, a publication that prides itself as being a staunch defender of private property rights, attacked the “pay-to-play” governor for supporting a “new form of eminent domain” for a now-cancelled super-highway project. If it had become law, it would have allowed the state to seize “any land it wanted with just 90 days of notice, then ‘negotiate’ the price later“:
And Perry is not content to merely pick taxpayer pockets on behalf of his corporate friends; he’ll resort to strong-arm robbery when necessary. The biggest controversy of his decade in the governor’s mansion was an arrogant attempted land-grab called the Trans-Texas Corridor, a $185 billion system of super-highways for which the state would have had to acquire as much as a thousand square miles of territory.
To deal with troublesome property owners who didn’t want to sell, Perry persuaded the legislature to pass a new form of eminent domain known as “quick-claim,” in which the state could have seized any land it wanted with just 90 days of notice, then “negotiate” the price later. The super-highway plan died in 2010 only because the federal government showed more concern for the rights of bugs and bunnies than Perry did for the property rights of his constituents, pulling the plug on its chunk of the budget out of environmental concerns.
I’m not a libertarian, but I find it amusing how Nelson, who spends most of his time bitching that public employee unions are bankrupting the government, has absolutely no problem endorsing a crook like Texas Governor Rick Perry, who plunders the state treasury like a piggy bank and freely dispenses taxpayer money to multi-billion dollar corporations in return for campaign contributions.
But I’ve long since learned that “free marketeers” like Nelson are about as phony as a three dollar bill with Donald Duck’s or Minnie Mouse’s face engraved upon it. Such people love to suck on the teats of the “nanny state” as long as it enriches them and the wealthy businessmen who help keep them in their comfy government jobs. In Nelson’s world, its free market for thee, but not for me.
This is a move by Nelson to stay in the good graces of Scott Baugh, nothing more. As if it made a difference in Perry’s chances!
Really. Is it true then that Baugh is taking the side of Perry over Romney? Tell us if you know something we don’t!
Been around a while wrote:
> This is a move by Nelson to stay in the good graces of Scott Baugh,
> nothing more. As if it made a difference in Perry’s chances!
Which goes to show you how incredibly phony “Tea Party” politicians like Shawn Nelson happen to be. They’re tools of the Republican party establishment who’ll do anything to feather their own nests.
Rick Perry will be our next president.
Geoff. Another tough one for me.
“What is a quarter of a mile wide, consumes 146 acres per mile, and sends all revenue to Spain and China?
Answer. The Trans Texas Corridor”
Some associates in Texas successfully stopped, at least for now, the super corridor that had “projected condemnation of 584,000 acres in Texas.”
And for Juice readers I did attend the event yesterday. No, not the high roller gathering at the hotel. I sat in the heat at Rogers Garden where we saw some protestors standing outside with home made signs after the governor arrived.
I will not be casting a vote for president Obama. Is anyone surprised?
Note: While this project falls under the category of a valid public use, taking tens of thousands of acres of land away from farmers is not something I can support.
Larry Gilbert wrote:
> I will not be casting a vote for president Obama. Is anyone surprised?
Don’t blame me, I voted for Ralph Nader. At the time, I warned people not to believe all the hype that Obama would be a “better” president than Bush; that he was just another snake oil salesman for Wall Street.
And if anybody really cares, I haven’t wasted my vote on a Democratic candidate for President since 1988 when I cast my ballot for Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis. But I was young and dumb back then.
If you don’t see a difference, then you’re being obtuse. There are massive differences on court appointments, environmental protection, personal freedom (which is consantly under threat by Republican religious idealogues), consumer protection–I can go on. And if you voted for Nader, for whom others I know voted, I do blame you.
I actually voted for Nader in 2000 – knowing it wouldn’t hurt anything doing that in California. But I did ask my friends in Missouri and other swing states NOT to!
Rapscallion wrote:
> If you don’t see a difference, then you’re being obtuse.
> There are massive differences on court appointments,
> environmental protection, personal freedom (which is
> consantly under threat by Republican religious idealogues),
> consumer protection–I can go on. And if you voted for
> Nader, for whom others I know voted, I do blame you.
The big problem with your analysis is that it is already deeply flawed. You make the presumption based on preconceived biases that the Democrats are “better” on the aforementioned issues you’ve carefully chosen than the Republicans are.
I don’t necessarily agree with that interpretation, by the way. It’s not that I have any love for Republicans. I don’t. But the Republicans at least let you know they are jerks upfront. The Democrats smile in your face and then squarely stab you in the back.
As for me voting for Ralph Nader or other “third party candidates,” if they “take away votes” from the Democrats, I think that’s great. That’s what elections are all about. The Democrats don’t own these votes. And if their candidates lose elections, that’s their problem.
Personally, I don’t consider voting that important. I pretty much stopped voting for Democrats years ago. And I don’t vote Republican. When I fill in my absentee ballot, I spoil my vote in races where there is only a Democrat and Republican. Why vote for someone I don’t want?
What brings about real changes in society are mass movements from below, not voting. It’s when the masses are in the streets making demands on the system that the system begins to respond. The people in power are forced to make changes.
I like to point out the most progressive president in U.S. history was Richard Nixon. Despite being a sleazeball, he enacted sweeping environmental laws, expanded social welfare programs, integrated public schools, ended the Vietnam war–you name it.
Did he do this because he was a nice guy? No. He was forced to do these things because the U.S. was in chaos. There were riots taking place in cities everywhere–even in front of the White House–and millions of people were demanding change.
As Frederick Douglas once wrote: “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has and never will.” That’s something people need to understand. If they want something, they have to demand it. Filling in a box for a candidate on an absentee ballot doesn’t cut it, I’m afraid.
Of course what Duane says about Democrats, which I’ve heard the guy saying for years, is only true about SOME Democrats, as any sane person can tell you. The good people who want to achieve something for the people in electoral politics are of course mostly Democrats.
Duane’s always right to remind us that mass movements are at least equally important to electoral politics however.
Vern Nelson wrote:
> Of course what Duane says about Democrats, which I’ve
> heard the guy saying for years, is only true about SOME
> Democrats, as any sane person can tell you. The good
> people who want to achieve something for the people in
> electoral politics are of course mostly Democrats.
Two things that Vern neglects to mention:
1.) The U.S. has one of the lowest voter turnouts in the industrialized world. Slightly more than half of the eligible electorate doesn’t bother to vote. That’s not because people are apathetic; it’s because there is nothing worth voting for. Our antiquated winner-take-all system of elections disenfranchises people. A majority of them are working-class and the Democrats or Republicans mostly serve the interests of wealthy businessmen who finance them.
2.) The strategy of “progressives” trying to infiltrate the Democrats and “bump it to the left” has failed over and over again. If anything, this strategy has actually helped the political narrative shift even further to the right every election cycle as it has prevented the emergence of an independent-left political party to compete against both the Democrats and Republicans, like the Populist and Socialist Parties did in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
> Duane’s always right to remind us that mass movements are at
> least equally important to electoral politics however.
Mass movements are more important than electoralism, in my opinion.
And if so, the race to the bottom will really be on. I wouldn’t mind if folks like you were only affected, but the rest of us will be circling the drain too, which is blatantly unjust.
Geoff Willis wrote:
> Rick Perry will be our next president.
If you’re lucky, Democratic President Barack Obama will dump Joe Biden and encourage Rick Perry to be his running mate. They both love using taxpayer money to enrich Wall Street billionaires who bankroll their political campaigns.
Coming next week: My lunch with Michelle Bachman.
Ask about her family farm subsidies while you;re at it.
Vern, I thought I read in the Register (or somewhere) that Baugh and the Repub. “leaders” here were quickly backing away from Romney after Perry declared. Then they seem to work hard to accommodate him at a Newport Beach meet and greet-fundraiser. Perhaps I am reading too much into it, but looks like a Perry lovefest to me. Maybe when Romney comes to OC next week, also looking for the green stuff, we will have a bit more to help us figure it all out.
Geoff Willis – perhaps if the vote was today, it would be Perry. However, it appears to me that cracks in his facade are appearing. One is that people are beginnig to realize that his job creation statistics include new federal jobs that happen to be in Texas, as well as jobs moved from other states to Texas – those are not new jobs, but transferred jobs. Sort of like China or India claiming they created jobs for all those jobs that left the U.S. and moved there.
Not to mention, the highest percentage of MINIMUM and SUB-MINIMUM WAGE jobs. Yeah, let’s go in that direction, America – NOT.
DR said: “The big problem with your analysis is that it is already deeply flawed. You make the presumption based on preconceived biases that the Democrats are “better” on the aforementioned issues you’ve carefully chosen than the Republicans are.”
Yes, I am. The current Republicans are lockstep in science denial (with the exception of Romnery, curiously enough.) They are opposed to a consumer protection agency, they support severe restrictions on abortion rights for mostly faith based and not scientific reasons, and have a wierd obsession with homosexuality as if their greatly honored marriages will be threatened.
On the Court, they gave us Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, (now departed) Alito and Roberts, all of whom are sure things for pro business and anti consumer and anti environment.
So yes, Democrats are better.
Rapscallion wrote:
> Yes, I am. The current Republicans are lockstep in science
> denial (with the exception of Romnery, curiously enough.) They
> are opposed to a consumer protection agency, they support
> severe restrictions on abortion rights for mostly faith based and
> not scientific reasons, and have a wierd obsession with homosexuality
> as if their greatly honored marriages will be threatened.
>
> On the Court, they gave us Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, (now
> departed) Alito and Roberts, all of whom are sure things for pro
> business and anti consumer and anti environment.
First, you’ve already admitted to me you have a preconceived bias that the Democrats are “better” based on a handful of issues that are obviously of importance to you. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing. But if that’s how you feel, great.
But my reasons as to why I don’t vote Democrat are not based on what I would consider to be a very narrow set of criteria. I don’t cherry pick like you apparently do. I look at the bigger picture and don’t ignore the horrible things the Democrats do.
> So yes, Democrats are better.
Better at warmongering? Better violators of international law? Better at supporting mass prison construction? Better at building a bigger police state? Better at corporate welfare? Better at subsidizing big agribusiness? Better at raising money from corporations? Better at bailing out Wall Street? Better at cutting off welfare for working moms? Better at attacking teacher’s unions? Better at crafting free trade agreements that export jobs overseas? Better at cutting funds for higher education? Better at imposing regressive taxation on the working and middle classes? Better at opposing drug law reform? Better at protecting the interests of health insurance companies? Better at deporting more undocumented workers?
There is no lack of evidence available to show the Democrats do all of this “better” than the Republicans.
Sorry, I don’t cherry pick.
DR, if you are positing that my list of concerns is “narrow” and “cherry picking” then you are obviously not going to argue in good faith. You can, if you wish, however, respond to that list of important concerns.
Your list at the bottom of your commentary seems more about Republican policies, especially with their ability to argue for corporate welfare, exporting jobs, cutting help for the poor and, get this, now working of selling off the Federal parks for the extraction and cattle businesses.
“Rapscallion” wrote:
> DR, if you are positing that my list of concerns is “narrow”
> and “cherry picking” then you are obviously not going to
> argue in good faith.
It is becoming quite obvious to me you have preconceived biases which impair your ability to look at the Democrats a bit more objectively. Now by saying that, I’m not making the claim the way I interpret reality is necessarily more accurate than the way you perceive things. I mean, we all see the world through rose colored glasses.
But as I’ve stated before, the criteria you use to justify the reasons why you support the Democrats is extremely narrow–if not quite myopic–to me. In my opinion, all you do is carefully cherry pick issues important to you and downplay or ignore the horrible things the Democrats do. This is the stupidity of “lesser of two evils”-type thinking.
> You can, if you wish, however, respond to
> that list of important concerns.
All you did is list some of the reasons why I don’t vote Republican.
> Your list at the bottom of your commentary seems more
> about Republican policies, especially with their ability to argue
> for corporate welfare, exporting jobs, cutting help for the poor
> and, get this, now working of selling off the Federal parks for
> the extraction and cattle businesses.
The Democrats have supported everything I stated.
Where do you want to start?
How about that jerk, ex-Democratic President Bill Clinton?
* He violated international law by bombing Serbia to smithereens under the phony pretext of humanitarian intervention. There was no sanction by the United Nations to attack that country.
* He lobbied for passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement which caused manufacturers to relocate factories to Mexico to take advantage of low wage labor and lax environmental laws.
* He signed into law the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1996 which gave local police departments the power to enforce immigration law, an idea that originated with then-U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno.
* He supported draconian laws which greatly expanded the power of the police to go after minor drug offenders, causing the number of people incarcerated in jails and prisons to almost double during Clinton’s term.
* He eliminated Aid to Families with Dependent Children and replaced it with a program that imposes a maximum 60 month lifetime restriction on benefits, plunging many into deeper poverty.
Shall I continue?
Don’t sit there with a straight face and tell me the Democrats are better.
That’s horseshit.
Well, I had my problems with Clinton, but don’t forget he was hamstrung by a rabidly hostile Congress for most of his 8 years. I always felt safer when he was in charge, though, than I have before with Reagan or Bush)or since (with Bush and Obama.)
You are still ignoring the fact that when it comes to environmental concerns and personal freedom the Democrats are better than the Republicans–there’s no comparison. Also, as we have what is now a dysfunctional system of government, in which a half a percentage point disenfranchises everyone else (I have yet to have a decent congressional or state representative from Irvine) and that, regardless, the Democrats are the best choice. As long as something like 60% of the Senate is controlled by small extremist red states, we’re ging to have to deal with it. I went through this with friends in 1999 who insisted that “now is the time to vote for a third party candidate” and, as much as I admire Nader, his quixotic candidacy led to the abysmal hell of 8 years of the cretinous Bush.
“Better at warmongering?
Better violators of international law?
Better at supporting mass prison construction?
Better at building a bigger police state?
Better at corporate welfare?
Better at subsidizing big agribusiness?
Better at raising money from corporations?
Better at bailing out Wall Street?
Better at cutting off welfare for working moms?
Better at attacking teacher’s unions?
Better at crafting free trade agreements that export jobs overseas?
Better at cutting funds for higher education?
Better at imposing regressive taxation on the working and middle classes?
Better at opposing drug law reform?
Better at protecting the interests of health insurance companies? Better at deporting more undocumented workers?”
Yes, that is a depressingly accurate list of things that SOME Democrats do. It could also double as a good checklist for distinguishing the progressives from the corporatists in our Party.
Just the same, Rapscallion’s list of concerns is far from negligible.
“Rapscallion” writes:
> Well, I had my problems with Clinton, but don’t forget he
> was hamstrung by a rabidly hostile Congress for most of
> his 8 years.
I understand that.
But don’t use this an excuse for everything. This is the old “Republicans made him do it” ruse. I grow tired of deluded rationalizations invoked to defend scumbag Democratic politicians.
And even when the Democrats have controlled Congress, they do pretty much the same things the Republicans do–albeit in a slightly different manner. Sometimes they do it much worse.
> I always felt safer when he was in charge, though, than I have
> before with Reagan or Bush)or since (with Bush and
> Obama.)
Clinton was a better mass murderer than Bush, wasn’t he?
He was bombing Iraq every 12 days and aggressively enforced economic sanctions that killed about 1.5 million civilians.
And guess what: no Americans were killed!
Genocide made easy!
> You are still ignoring the fact that when it comes to
> environmental concerns and personal freedom the
> Democrats are better than the Republicans–there’s no
> comparison.
Sorry, but the historical evidence doesn’t always support that assertion.
* It was a Republican-dominated U.S. Supreme Court that legalized the right of women to have an abortion and struck down anti-sodomy laws.
* It was Democrats who passed laws making pot illegal and criminalized the speech of anti-war critics. (e.g., Espionage Act of 1917)
* Republican President Richard Nixon signed into law some of the most sweeping environmental laws of the late 20th century.
* Democratic President Barack Obama capitulates to polluters and decides not to tighten Bush/Cheney era smog rules.
* In the 20th century, Democratic presidents always have always instituted the military draft; Republicans usually end it.
I can provide you with many other examples of showing how the pendulum has swung back and forth depending on social conditions.
How the Democrats and Republicans behave depends mostly on mass movements existing outside the realm of electoral politics.
> Also, as we have what is now a dysfunctional system of
> government, in which a half a percentage point
> disenfranchises everyone else (I have yet to have a
> decent congressional or state representative from Irvine)
> and that, regardless, the Democrats are the best choice.
The winner-take-all system is an antiquated relic of the 18th century where the only people who cast their ballots were a tiny handful of rich white property owners.
It needs to be abolished and replaced with proportional representation, as exists in Europe and elsewhere. That’s a better way of representing a diverse population.
Also, the U.S. Senate needs to be abolished. Completely undemocratic, in my opinion.
> As long as something like 60% of the Senate is controlled
> by small extremist red states, we’re ging to have to deal
> with it. I went through this with friends in 1999 who insisted
> that “now is the time to vote for a third party candidate” and,
> as much as I admire Nader, his quixotic candidacy led to
> the abysmal hell of 8 years of the cretinous Bush.
First, I’m of the opinion it is always an “abysmal hell” whether a Republican or Democrat is president. I’m also not of the belief Gore would have been any better than Bush.
Second, in respect to Nader, what you said is horseshit. The evidence doesn’t support your assertion. But it is easier to regurgitate the same old lies than to address fundamental issues.
Several facts regarding the 2000 election:
* Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election by more than 500,000 votes nationwide. But thanks to the antiquated electoral college system–which should have been abolished long ago–the loser won.
* Numerous exit polls in Florida at the time showed that an estimated 200,000 registered Democrats voted for George W. Bush. As I recall it, only about 100,000 people voted for Nader in that state.
* Gore lost Tennessee–his home state–to Bush. Nader didn’t earn enough votes to make a difference. If Tennessee had swung to Gore, he would have had the electoral college votes he needed to win.
* The New York times and a number of other newspapers did a thorough examination of all the ballots cast in the Florida presidential election and concluded that in fact Gore did win that state.
Shall I go on?
Let’s talk about how the Republican-dominated U.S. Supreme Court–in a ridiculous decision–upheld Bush’s theft of the election? How about the fact the Florida Secretary of State suppressed voter turnout?
And lastly is the fact most of the people who voted for Nader would not have voted for Gore or Bush under any circumstances. I know I wouldn’t have.
Sorry, but I don’t vote Democrat or Republican.
I have no regrets and am proud of it.
Vern Nelson wrote:
> Yes, that is a depressingly accurate list of things that SOME
> Democrats do. It could also double as a good checklist
> for distinguishing the progressives from the corporatists in our Party.
Without getting into another lengthy discussion over this matter, I do agree with Vern that not all Democrats support the things I mentioned in the “depressingly accurate list” I compiled.
Where I would beg to differ with him, however, is his assertion that only “some” Democrats support these things. It seems “those” Democrats exert a powerful influence within that body.
This is not surprising to me given historically the Democrats, like the Republicans, are a political party organized to serve the needs of business interests. Rich people have always run it.
> Just the same, Rapscallion’s list of concerns is far from negligible.
I didn’t say his concerns weren’t important.
Like I said, they are just some of the reasons why I don’t vote Republican.
So if Michele Bachmann won the Republican nomination for president and was running against Barack Obama, I wouldn’t vote for her.
But I wouldn’t cast my ballot for Obama, either.
“Of course what Duane says about Democrats, which I’ve heard the guy saying for years, is only true about SOME Democrats, as any sane person can tell you.”
Yes, Vern, it’s only some Democrats, but they tend to be the ones in office.
As for Nelson endorsing Perry, does that meant Shawn is comfortable with Perry’s idiotic religious antics in office?
Matt Leslie wrote:
> Yes, Vern, it’s only some Democrats, but they tend to be the ones in office.
Vern’s a nice guy, but he makes all kinds of silly excuses to rationalize his support for the Democratic War Party and President Barack O-Bomba, Wall Street’s favorite snake oil salesman.
Who is the silliest, the most naive, the most Pollyannish?
Those making one more BIG PUSH to get the Dem Party more helpful to progressive causes?
Or those who insist in their purity to work outside the system and eschew electoral politics and the two major parties?
And who’s likely to be more productive?
I don’t know, maybe posterity will tell us.
Vern Nelson wrote:
> Who is the silliest, the most naive, the most Pollyannish?
>
> Those making one more BIG PUSH to get the Dem Party more helpful
> to progressive causes?
>
> Or those who insist in their purity to work outside the system and eschew
> electoral politics and the two major parties?
>
> And who’s likely to be more productive?
Well, you misrepresent my position when you make the assertion that I insist on absolute “purity” and hint I “eschew electoral politics” entirely. Not true.
In respect to electoralism, I’m not an absentionist yet. But I have no qualms in saying that I don’t consider voting really that important anymore.
But I do reject the Democrats and Republicans and am proud of it. In fact, data is suggesting that more and more people agree with me: both of these parties suck.
Although I’m still a registered “Green,” the number of “Independents” is increasing. In Arizona, they exceed the Democrats and are closing in on the Republicans.
http://www.willcoxrangenews.com/articles/2011/08/17/news/news04.txt
As for being the “silliest, the most naive, the most Pollyannish,” I really think its delusional to continue to claim the Democrats are something which they are not.
Like “Rapscallion,” you cherry pick a few issues and overblow their significance to rationalize your support of the Democrats, ignoring all the other terrible things they do.
As for groups like the Progressive Democrats of America, the goal of that organization is to keep the “left” in the Democratic Party, not to “bump” the Democrats to the “left.”
That a huckster like Tim Carpenter founded it–someone I dealt with personally in the late 90s before he left for Massachusetts–tells me quite a bit.
As for being “productive,” the PDA’s strategy doesn’t work. But then it isn’t supposed to work. Its purpose is to keep people voting Democrat no matter how rotten they are.
To be quite frank, I prefer to be the “silliest, the most naive, and the most Pollyannish” than waste my time spinning my wheels and going nowhere in the Democratic War Party.
Just on the record, I didn’t CALL you all that. I left it as a question to be decided by our kids. Cuz you oughtta know that sometimes I think you’re right.
Vern Nelson write:
> Just on the record, I didn’t CALL you all that. I left it as a
> question to be decided by our kids. Cuz you oughtta know
> that sometimes I think you’re right.
No problem.
*Totally off the subject;
*Shawn Nelson….our very own Mark Christie…..viola!
Certainly off the subject –
Who is Mark Christie?
And what does the viola have to do with it?
They meant Agatha Christie, too much of liquid sun.