P Ricketts
I think that Pete Ricketts should change his name to something more hip, like I dunno, "P Ricketts." It would sound cool, and make an association in the minds of young, "with it" people to Sean "P Diddy" Combs. Or he could just shorten it to "P RICK," like when Sean Combs went from "Puff Daddy" to " P Diddy."
Wait. Maybe that's not such a good idea. See, I was just thinking about this in my head, but now that I see "P RICK" spelled out on screen, it looks kinda bad... So, just forget the whole thing. We wouldn't want to give people the wrong impression now would we?
In all seriousness, this guy continues to piss me off. Anybody who declares himslf a "Reagan Republican," at the beginning of their newest campaign commercial, while simultaneously continuing to support the policies of the current administration in fighting against things like embryonic stem cell research deserves to be called out. I mean, even Nancy Reagan is for stem cell research, and you can't get much more "Reagan Republican" than that.
Ricketts' new spot, Protect Our Values, is ridiculous. In fact, I think that Ricketts has reached a new level of ridiculousness, that as I have made the case before, was already a pretty high bar. In the new ad, Ricketts begins by saying:
"I'm Pete Ricketts. I approve this message because as a Reagan Republican, I know Washington politicians have abandoned our conservative values of low taxes and limited government."
It's very rare for the first two sentences out of a politicians mouth to kill their rest of their ad for me. Honestly, all it takes these days is seeing Pete Ricketts face to get me fuming, let alone anything he might say. But lets dissect this first sentence, shall we? First, I'm not exactly sure what a Reagan Republican actually is. I'm sure that's it's a term used to harken back to the bygone era of the '80s where everything was just peachy. I'll admit that the optimism and pride in America that the Reagan administration embodied were good for the country, and I'll even concede that some of his policies may have helped bring about the end of the Cold War. He saw the United States as a "shining city on a hill," the light of the world. Which it was. Unless you happened to live at the lower end of the economic spectrum, or I don't know, have AIDS. According to the Statistical Abstract of the United States for 1996, the number of people (white, black, and Hispanic) below the poverty level increased in almost every year between 1981 (31.8 million) and 1992 (39.3 million). And I'm not blaming AIDS on Mr. Reagan, but according to Dartmouth Professor Michael Bronski, AIDS was first reported in 1981 and wasn't addressed by the President until 1987 and by that time 59,572 people had been diagnosed with AIDS and 27,909 had died from it. Add all of that to the fact that national debt exploded from $930 billion in 1981 to $2.6 trillion in 1988, and I'm having a hard time seeing what's so great about being a Reagan Republican. Maybe it's a case of believing in the ideals that something represents, rather than the actual practice, much along the lines of how I feel about this country of ours, but with Ricketts I somehow doubt it.
Moving right along, Ricketts claims we have "abandoned our conservative values of low taxes and limited government." I agree that we have abandoned the ideal of limited government. I totally agree that the Executive now has way too much power, trampling the Constitution whenever it sees fit and committing violations from domestic spying to suspending habeas corpus. But what the hell is Ricketts talking about when he says we are abandoning low taxes? Where has he been since G.W. Bush took office? Hello, tax cuts? Tax cuts even during a time of "war?" Tax cuts that when combined with the money we are spending on the "war" have helped raise the deficit to an astronomical $8.4 trillion? Tax cuts that "have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950, and have been a major contributor to the dramatic shift from large projected budget surpluses to projected deficits as far as the eye can see?" Tax cuts that benefit the wealthy, averaging $44,293 a year for the top 1 percent, while having a negligible effect on average families who end up receiving only about $227 in relief? Tax cuts that have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families? What about those tax cuts Pete? Good Lord, you cut taxes any more, and I do not want to see the outcome. As it stands, guys like Pete Ricketts will continue to get richer and richer and almost everybody else in Nebraska will be left father and farther behind. People like you and me. Tell me again how that's in step with "Nebraska Values?"
You still with me? Good. Now, the next part of his ad is downright hilarious. The ad switches from a close up of Ricketts' hairless dome to a shot of DC with Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton super-imposed over the top. Ricketts' voiceover proclaims:
"A Democrat Senate controlled by Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton promises an agenda of higher taxes, more government spending, and liberal judges."
First of all, is Pete Ricketts running against Hillary Clinton and/or Ted Kennedy? Look, I have no particular love for these two either, so to be fair to Pete, I'll call them names, too. How about Hillary "White Water" Clinton and Ted "Brown Liquor" Kennedy? The fact remains, however, that Ricketts IS NOT running against White Water and/or Brown Liquor, he's running against Ben Nelson. Second, are either White Water or Brown Liquor in control of the Senate? No, it's controlled by Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist. And even if the control of the Senate swings to the Dems in the next election, wouldn't Minority Leader
So, as you can see Ricketts continues to pull stuff out of his ass. No facts, just conjecture. He continues to mislead and even managed to mangle the Constitution. Great job, Pete. If he can do all of that in a 30 second spot, imagine what he can do while serving our state in Congress! Win or lose, I can hardly wait until the next election, so I won't have to see Ricketts' ads any more.
posted by Christian at 9:29 AM
3 Comments:
Hello Christian and all,
You may not initially agree with everything I reveal, but please be a little patient with my long-winded presentation of what I have waited a very long time to be able to say. I promise to amaze and enlighten.
Now for the worst part of this horrendous equation.
Pay close attention, profundity knocks at the door, listen for the key. Be Aware! Scoffing causes blindness...
Bush, Cheney, and the NeoCons are Vatican operatives hell-bent on impoverishing and indebting the USA. Looks like their plans have worked like a charm while the brain-dead American public remains duped, deluded, and addicted to money, religion, and politics. Who says you can't fool most of the people, most of the time...
Humanity has long been deceived and deluded into thinking that money is a positive means to manage life, societies and civilizations. Chapter 2 of Revelations from the Apocalypse, Volume 1: Here is Wisdom thoroughly exposes the foundational deceptions associated with the concept of money and how it is actually a severe hardship on every aspect of life and every endeavor that must bear the burden of its unnecessary overhead and resulting stifling complexity. Money severely impedes the quality of life, society, and civilization by spawning myriad horrendous side effects (poverty, crime, wars, pollution, waste, greed, stress, etc.) which are all traced directly to its presence, purposeful shortage, and imposed requirement.
Here's a real hot potato! Eat it up, digest it, and then feed it's bones to the hungry...
Money was conceived millennia ago by the priesthood of ancient Babylon to subvert the resources and energies of entire populations for the benefit of a rich and powerful few. Chapter 2 further pierces the ages-old smoke and mirrors surrounding the scourge of money, banking and credit (usury) by exposing their core logic and common denominator math. It exposes the purposeful and well-sculpted math and logic trap imposed upon humanity by the Vatican, its ancient predecessors, and their secret-society cohorts.
It is abundantly clear that imposing money upon the entire world and then forcing people to participate in usury, pay taxes, compounding interest on national debts, and then to struggle their lives away for the sake of money, is extortion and great injustice on a grand scale. To cause suffering and despair for profit on such a grand scale can only be described as abominably evil. The time has finally arrived to demand a full accounting from the Papacy, Vatican, and all of their cohorts and chief supporters. They have no right to cause such overwhelming despair and suffering for millennia. They have no right to deceive practically everyone on such a grand scale. Why do our national leaders conspire with them and participate in such great evil while pretending to serve the Creator? Why do people still have blind faith in such obvious deceivers and their deceptions while they continue perpetrating such widespread and horrendous evil and abominations?
The time has come to wake-up and prove to these duplicitous scoundrels that you are only temporary marks and dupes.
Money: The Greatest Lie Ever Told
Peace...
While it has been said that money is the root of all evil, I have to kindly disagree.
Without money, the power structure of this world would be even less equally distributed than it is now. Although the middle class is shrinking in places like the United States, without money there would be no middle class. Power would be held by those who had amassed large portions of land and the rest of the world’s populace would be beholden to those "wealthy" land owners. It would be like the Middle Ages all over again, the world's classes consisting of kings and lords who would control all the power with the rest of everyone serving as serfs with no voice whatsoever.
The fact is, money is power, good or bad. The way the world is structured may not be perfect, far from it in fact, with the rich and powerful individuals and corporations holding great sway in the way things are done. However, as long as the populace has money of their own, they can still influence policy through their spending, maybe not individually, but as a collective. After all, a corporation will no longer be powerful if no one buys their products or services.
Look, money is a problem, especially when it comes to government. You simply have to look at the recent wave of scandals affecting Congress, or more cynically, the war in Iraq. But, at least here in the States, this is because we, the people who are supposed to be in power, have let big money control our government. With lobbyists donating money to our elected representatives, those representatives now serve whatever interests those lobbyists represent, as opposed to their actual constituents.
Again, I'm only speaking for the U.S. here, but the way to fix this is Public Financing For Elections. If we pay just a little bit of money to help our officials get elected, they will be beholden to us and not lobbyists and those they represent. Sure it will cost money, but in the long term I believe it will actually save money and return power to the people. To be fair, this will not stop corruption entirely, as greedy souls will always be looking for a handout or bribe somewhere, but it would go a long way.
Our country is broken and a lot of that has to do with money. But I think we can fix it, and I believe that we will. I also believe that some things should be provided for everyone, like health care, for example. But I don't believe that getting rid of money and subverting to dictatorship or monarchy is the answer, which I believe, is what would happen if there was no money.
In a perfect world we wouldn't need money. Everyone would have all they needed and would stand on equal ground. However, this is not a perfect world, and greed and the lust for power would still compel those who were driven by those traits to subjugate others whether money existed or not. The answer is therefore not to abolish money (which in itself is not corrupt, but rather those who use it in a corrupt fashion), but to use money as a force for change and, dare I say, a force for good. After all, money makes the world go 'round, and that isn't going to change any time soon.
Just a question...isn't Nancy Pelosi the minority leader in the house? I thought that Harry Reid was the minority leader in the Senate.
Post a Comment
<< Home