The Rooney Report

Thomas: Another Republican jock shames team, Massachusetts, self

What is it with imported Republican jocks imposing their oversized egos and misguided political ideas on the minds of our Massachusetts youth?

Sorry, Tim, but anyone who would blow off a U.S. President like Barack Obama to have dinner with a paranoid self-promoting mental case like Glenn Beck deserves the headline.

First, it was Red Sox World Series ace pitcher Curt Schilling, cruising in Air Force One with bonehead President Bush, shaming his adopted state and polluting Boston's spirit of jubilation with his partisan politics and self-glorification.  

Now we have Tim Thomas, Stanley Cup hero and Conn Smythe trophy winner, using his newly-acquired public pulpit as a means to promote his Tea Party mentality at the expense of his country, his team and his fans. 

Both are outsiders from Republican-dominated states-- (Pennsylvania) Arizona and Michigan --  who showed total disrespect for this state. It's not just about mixing politics with pleasure. It's about spoiling a beautiful moment for a team, a city, and a state, stealing the limelight to serve his narcissism and the Republican Party. 

Of course, Thomas has a right as an individual and as a citizen to express his political views. (Nice to see that restored under Obama's America, right?  The former administration imposed limits on free speech and intimidated those who dared speak out against King George. Ask Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame).

In his cowardly, retreating retort to his very public and political diss of Obama, the goalie regurgitated the same old Tea Party mantra as if it were really his own individual "philosophical" beef with "big government."

Give me a break. 

Here's the BS the NHL allowed Thomas to promulgate as his decision to skip the time honored tradition in USA team sports:

“I believe the federal government has grown out of control, threatening the rights, liberties, and property of the people,” he said.

“This is being done at the executive, legislative, and judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the constitution and the founding fathers vision for the federal government.

“Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a free citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an individual."

But Thomas' diatribe is not a tribute to rugged individualism. First, Thomas knows full well that he is a public figure who can sway public opinion. And he says it is not partisan? BS, dude. Not that anyone cares about what a hockey player thinks of our system of checks and balances, but Thomas has been unusually public about his political leanings, which run way right of those of most Massachusetts citizens. 

Here's a portion of Wikipedia's entry for Tim Thomas: 

"Thomas is a Republican and has stated that the person he would most like to have dinner with is conservative TV  pundit Glenn Beck. After winning the Stanley Cup, Thomas skipped the traditional victors' meet-and-greet with the Barack Obama at the White House; he was the only active Bruin to not attend."

You embarrassed yourself, your team, your fans and the people of Massachusetts. The Republican machine must have loved the part about you being the only American-born Bruin on the team and the only player not to attend. Funny how you guys only have to be patriots when a Republican is in office. 

And Beck just loves it when any Boston sports hero slaps a Democrat, especially one anointed by the Kennedys. How delicious. Seems like you'll be getting that dinner with Beck, now. 

Stick to the Net, Thomas, and keep your politics to youself. Yes, you're a BMOC now. But be realistic: nobody cares what any athlete thinks of politics.  All it will do is draw controversy to the team. 

I for one am going to voice my disapproval by refusing to watch the Bruins play on nights when Thomas is goaltending and i hope other like-minded citizens join me.

Gladly, Tuukka Rask is in the net tonight against the Washington Capitals. How fitting. Now which team do you think Obama is rooting for? 

 

Earth to Elizabeth Warren: Take Off the Gloves, Take Back Massachusetts

Brown -1, Warren - 0. 

I'm alluding. of course, to the "mutual" agreement reached this week between US Senator Scott Brown and Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren to refuse outside SuperPAC funded negative advertising as the campaign begins in earnest.

Warren, who has built a $250 million war chest to date, has been played by the Republicans. She has lots of dirt to work with while Brown's campaign hasn't been able to dig up anything to tarnish her squeaky clean image. And now she can't use that firepower? Please. 

Brown's first vote after being elected -- rejecting a pro-union attorney to the labor board --  was a direct affront to the unions, and cemented his fate. Once these guys get burned, they don't forget.

He stood opposed to the financial regulations overhaul and only reversed course after extracting some goodies for his benefactors and effective bullying by Sen Kerry and Rep Frank. 

Brown is still a fresh-faced incumbent yet he knows his seat is vulnerable. Since pissing off the labor class, he's tried to build support in some unlikely but strong constituent communities, like the gay community. But as Mitt Romney learned in 1994, the GLTB community pays zero homage to the lip speak of Republicans.

The fact is, the down-to-earth truck driving populist imagery that got Brown (and George Bush) elected has vanished and cannot be resuscitated.

Brown and his Republican friends know this and they are only doing what they know best -- trying to minimize the damage of his voting record by hijacking public perception and using the opponent's value system against her own interests.  Brown knew that Warren's campaign would have no choice but to bite on a a campaign pledge that only benefits the incumbent.

But here's the deal, Elizabeth -- go negative all you want. If you've got the goods, use them, or at least package up some ads and have them ready to deploy. Democrats fully realize that the party's good guy image must be sacrificed if Democratic policies are to survive an increasingly corrupt conservative cartel running this country.

It took Al Gore's "loss" to George Bush, and the ensuing eight years of Bush's mass destruction on United States' interests, to drive home the point that sometimes the party has to play hardball. With the stakes as high as they have ever been, that's all the time. 

Brown's campaign against negative advertising is absurd if not ironic. He was a virtual nobody in the Massachusetts Senate when he was elected to the U.S. senate two years ago, almost entirely due to outside Republican SuperPAC funding in a last minute blitzkreig television attack campaign that took an unsuspecting Martha Coakley and the Democratic Party by surprise. 

I would not be surprised if Brown pulls the same rabbit out of a hat close to election time. Here's how I predict it will unfold: the Republicans will conjure up a clever plan that puts Warren in the limelight for allegedly instigating an "elitist" street brawl with the local boy, and he will "naturally" respond with a very wicked public attack that works. Republicans are good at this sort of thing.

I hope the candidate and Democratic Party don't get fooled again, but I wouldn't bet on it. Democratis take this beating over and over and over again, convinced the masses will one day regain their senses and vote for the party that represents their interests, but it almost never happens if  Republicans administer the first big blow.

If I were advising Elizabeth Warren, I'd tell her to have three very smart, very accurate negative ad campaigns in the bag and then deploy them in high volume across the state close to election time -- before Brown beats her to the punch. It's high time that Democrats use their opponents' playbook and mobillize a beaten down constituency tired of being humiliated by Republican tacticians. 

Time to take off the gloves, Elizabeth. 

 

Debt ceiling debate will cost the Aristocratic Party in 2012

This latest clash between the Democratic Party and the Aristocratic Party is mind boggling. (I call the Republican party that because that is what it has become). Raise the debt ceiling?  Of course. Raise taxes on the top? Of course. Like we have a choice. 

Read my lips: we are still in this deep hole because of the Bush era tax cuts, Bush era financial deregulation, Bush era warmongering and Bush era warmongering without raising taxes  -- something no president, not even George H Bush, had ever done before. Stupid and greedy. Allowing the Bush'-Cheney mistakes to fester is simply no longer an option. 

As pointed out by President Obama, spending cuts are necessary. But reversing the Republican mistakes is imperative now. I'm glad Obama is finally framing the debate correctly. Re-instituting the pre Bush era tax bracket for zillionaires is a no brainer and gutting loopholes for oil companies is long overdue. Republican policies caused our dilemma and can't cure our dilemma. Why is there even a debate? 

The average American has shouldered the bill for Bush aristocrats, corporate crooks, outsourcing multinationals and government bailout receipients disproportionately for more than a decade. There's nothing left -- no jobs, no equity. The Aristocratic Party is delusional thinking it can extend those tax cuts indefinitely. 

And Obama is delusional thinking that cooperation and compromise is possible. The Republican war on the middle class and the poor is getting worse, not better, and will continue unabashed. It is now systemic, and a core principle of the Republican Party. If the U.S. credit rating does in fact  get downgraded by Moody's and S&P (whose opinion, by the way, should matter little to anyone paying attention), all of us will pay, but especially the Aristicrats.  Are the leading Republicans thinking clearly on this?

Do we know how much money George W Bush and Dick Cheney (and the rest of that 2 percent) personally amassed during the Republican reign? I don't know, but maybe enough to resolve the debt question :) Remember all those no-bid Halliburton contracts? Breaks to big oil?  Why are we still debating these matters.  

Obama made a big mistake trying to compromise with the Republicans during his first term. He had a clear mandate, and overwhelming power to execute on the wishes of the American people. Now he knows that strategy won't work. And he'll have his second chance. The interests of the Aristocratic party are no longer obscured by plausible rhetoric that once mollified the underlings.  

They've attacked the unions, the old, the sick and the poor. Attempting to take away social security benefits from the masses and war weary veterans while insisting on continued tax cuts for the rich? Is Boehner stoned?   

The Republican Party spent our nation to ruin. It is true that some of those tea partyers led by Republican lobbyist FreedomWorks will never grasp reality, and will vote for the Aristocrats. But a good number of those fooled before won't be fooled again. Efforts to take away collective bargaining rights, social security and veterans benefits from the real producers of our country makes the Republicans far more transparent and vulnerable.

My bet? The phenomenon of the Reagan Democrat will come to an end and Republicans will pay big in the 2012 elections. 

 

 

 

 

Mr Brown goes to Washington ... and fails

It's just so Republican for Scott Brown and those of his ilk to warn Democrats about upcoming elections after the passage of historic health care reform. 

Why? Because it seems all these pols worry about -- unashamedly and so publicly  -- is their own election, their own advancement. And it is they -- not Democrats -- who should fear the worst. 

I applaud those Democrats who took a stand for the American people last night. It is true that some of them will face an uphill battle at election time; the insurance lobby, after all, has been very successful convincing many ordinary people to vote against their own interests.

Yet I also believe that the passage of health care reform may be more of a black eye for Republicans than Democrats. 

If I were a lobbyist for Cigna or Aetna today, I'd be far more upset with my bought-and-paid for Republican allies than with the Democrats. I'd be wondering why my multi-billion investment in the right wing collapsed, and turning my attentions -- and my checkbook -- to those who have the real power in Washington. 

The Democratic Party demonstrated last night that it has the clout, the power and the political might to accomplish its goals and exercise the will of the people. This is very significant. Aside from the election of Barack Obama, the Democratic Party has often fallen limp in the face of strenuous, well funded resistance from the Republican machine. 

Not any more.  Republicans like Scott Brown like to portray their election as a message from the people, but we all know that it was out-of-state and deep pocketed financing from the Republican Party (and hence, quietly, the insurance lobby) that won his seat.

In the months ahead, it will become more obvious to the people, even some on the other side, that health care reform is not the one-eyed monster as portrayed by Republicans. Many may still object to the upfront costs, but unfounded fears about socialism and Big Brother will evaporate as the plan's benefits are communicated -- and the insurance-funded advertising frenzy dissipates. And Republicans will get less money to bang the drum. 

As far as the moneybags are concerned, the battle is over. They -- and their Republican allies -- failed. The corporate cartel running our health care industry must now answer to the president, to Congress, to the people. This is good for patients, doctors, policy holders and taxpayers. They must now work to persuade the people that their premiums are deserved -- and no longer will they have the luxury of dictating patient plans to brain surgeons. 

This means there will be a shift in the cash flow, and that Republicans like Scott Brown can no longer take insurers' campaign financing for granted. He cast his 41st vote, but who cares if it's worthless?

When his special term is up, Brown will have to generate some real grassroots funding from the teeny-weeny Tea Party and tight wadded Republican voters who would rather watch their unemployed neighbors and poor people die without insurance than part with a penny. 

Good luck with that. 

Protests, Coffee Party: Is the Democratic grassroots movement finally taking off?

A disorganized yet audible grassroots movement is finally springing up among the Democratic populace.

A number of separate citizens actions, aimed at building public support for President Obama's health care reform, have taken place in recent weeks -- and we hope more will come. 

About 1,000 union workers and others marched last week in support of Obama's health care reform package outside of the glitzy DC Ritz Carlton, where health insurance execs met to discuss their industry's future. Activists wrapped a yellow "Corporate Crime" banner around the Ritz to convey their frustration with insurers' greed.  

[Personal note: Hartford would have been a better place for health insurance companies to meet but I guess it made sense to host the conclave in DC since the execs are busy lobbying the capitol around the clock these days. But did it even occur to the organizers to move the meeting to a less jazzy site given the politics of the day? Someone in PR at Cigna or Aetna should lose his or her job.]

Then there is the newfound Coffee Party. CNN aired a story late last week about the Coffee Party, a citizens organization founded by a woman named Annabel Lee to counter the Tea Party. 

The aim is not to advance progressive liberal policy per se but to advance civilized and intellectual public discourse about national issues. In other words, the organization aims to (advance progressive liberal ideas :)) and more importantly, snuff out the Tea Party's extreme tactics -- such as shouting out corporate-created nonsense at Town Hall meetings and foolish signs of Obama bearing a Hitler-like 'stash. The first series of coffee shop meetings were held across the country on March 14 and a national event is planned for March 27.

[Personal note: Attacking the Tea Party's anti-intellectual bent is an effective tactic -- if done correctly. The Nazi Party borrowed the word Socialist for its official naming but Nazism is fascism, which is very different from socialism. The Tea Party cannot expect reasonable people to consider their fears about socialism seriously when they don't know the difference between socialism and Nazism. If Dick Armey does not find it important to educate his troops about the difference, we know the purported mission statement is bogus.] 

These recent events are very encouraging, and hopefully will help spark massive counter-protests against the corporate machine running the nation. Maybe we should thank Dick Armey's ProgressWorks Republican lobbying group for igniting Democratic public involvement after all.

.

Is Brown the first pro choice, pro gay marriage, socialist conservative?

Does anyone else find Scott Brown's hero reception at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC this week deliciously ironic?

After all, he publicly disagrees with the conservatives on at least three hot button issues -- abortion, gay marriage and universal healthcare. 

Brown is pro-choice and opposes overturning gay marriage in Massachusetts. 

He also opposes a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage.

He voted for "socialized" healthcare in Massachusetts. 

He identified himself as an independent when he ran for U.S. Senator.

Why was he celebrated at CPAC this week? 

For that matter, why was he invited?

Olympics -- the gift that keeps giving to Romney

Mitt Romney -- the former 'socialist' governor who pioneered health care reform in Massachusetts-- keeps making political hay out of the Olympics.

Romney is the former Republican presidential candidate who exploded onto the political scene after allegedly rescuing the 2004 Utah Olympics from ruin. 

Following his brief photo-op at the Vancouver, BC event this week, Romney exploited U.S. Olympic Gold medalist Lindsey Vonn to trash Obama at CPAC. Headlining the event, Romney joked that Vonn had to relinquish her gold medal because President Obama is going downhill faster" than the downhill skier. 

It might have been funnier if Vonn's wipeout the same day hadn't spoiled her bid for a second gold medal for the United States.

That wasn't his only un--Patriotic stunt out of the 0lympics this week. Romney was reportedly attacked on an airplane flying from Vancouver to LA. Weird thing is that Mr Slick didn't press charges and the anonymous attacker was arrested, released and then allowed to catch another flight. 

Huh? Mr National Security let this terrorist go without a good water boarding? I don't want this criminal on my flight. Where was the Canadian Prime Minister when this happened?

Joking aside, kudos to flak Eric Fehrnstrom, who must have worked overtime to generate some ink (and 1s and 0s posted) about the Romneys' latest Olympic trial. The mention about the couple's economy class tix was just brilliant.

I suppose it would be a bigger coup if Romney had a real shot at the 2012 election. Sorry, Mitt, but the health care reform thing in Massachusetts makes you a big liability. It muddies the GOP's socialist mudslinging against Democrats and Obamacare a wee bit too much. 

The money is on your CPAC presenter, Scott Brown, the newly-crowned Republican senator from Massachusetts. He's just more handsome and mavericky than you.

[By the way, Mitt, thanks for the health care reform. The public option I am required by law to purchase in liberal land jumped by $100 per month for 2010, to about $670 per month for an individual policy. So much for reform. 

  

Brown's Vote Hurts Unions, Labor, Workers

Scott Brown cast his first vote as a U.S. senator and make no mistake: it's a pro-corporate, anti-worker move.

He sided with Republicans in their successful effort to stop President Obama’s appointment of a union lawyer, Craig Becker, to the National Labor Relations Board. 

The board's function is to certify unions and negotiate disputes between employers and workers. In other words, it represents the interests of laborers.   

With this decision, Brown is giving all of his blue collar supporters the big bird. Brown's explanation?

He maintains that this union lawyer would not be good to corporations and other employers, and would therefore impact job creation. Yes, ahem, the same employers that outsourced our jobs to India and China. 

Labor unions are very upset with Scottie this week, and justifiably so. The photo of Brown "arriving" in D.C. this week with his pickup truck (politican prop) only adds insult to injury. 

One top labor activist this week said blue collar workers who voted for Brown did so against labor endorsements and will deserve what they get. 

The Globe summed it up nicely. 

“So much for his alleged independence,’’ said Rich Rogers, executive secretary-treasurer of the Greater Boston Labor Council in a telephone interview with the Globe. “He’s immediately capitulated to the Republicans.’’

The Greater Boston Labor Council, like many unions in Massachusetts, endorsed Brown’s Democratic opponent, Martha Coakley, but Brown was able to attract many of the rank-and-file workers through his image of a truck-driving everyman.

“We worked hard for Martha Coakley. But our members for whatever reason are angry and voted for Brown,’’ Rogers said. “And this is what we’re getting.’’.

It's too bad. Craig Becker would have helped strengthen a labor movement that has been laregly emasculated during King George's Republican reign. 

Why did these workers vote against their interests? 

Is it a case of misdirected anger at Democrats, even with undisputed knowledge that it was the Republicans who destroyed our economy and fleeced the nation over a decade?

Or is it that they hate the idea of a black president and woman senator so much that they would hurt their own family's economic interests? 

I saw the blue collar boys and girls out there in the rain tailgating on election day, hollering at honking truckers and barking nasties at Coakley supporters like me.  I would feel sorry for them but their votes gave power to a party that is hurting everyday working people. 

This is what I really hate about Republicans, especially the Roves of the world. They are unashamedly deceitful and exploitive of the people who have the most to lose by their election. They lie and manipulate thousands of gullible hard working people into voting for them, and then, like Scott Brown, give them the big bird. 

And then nothing happens to them. They seem to prosper. 

Ted Kennedy and Martha Coakley demonstrated though votes and litigation that they acted on behalf of the people and everyday workers of Massachusetts.  All the unions endorsed Coakley. Still, the workers gave these fine public servants -- and themselves -- the big bird.

I'm not sure the "rank-and-file" grasps what happened this week, but they sure will get it when Scott Brown votes against Obama's job bill in the next few weeks.

Citizen Palin paid $100,000 to trash talk the president

It's amazing to me that the GOP paid Sarah Palin $100,000 to trash talk President Obama before only 600 paying customers at the Tea Party Convention. 

And they say Democrats waste money. 

It's also amazing to me that anyone listens to her anymore. After handing the GOP an inevitable but painfully embarrasing defeat last year, Palin walked off her job as governor of Alaska to promote her self-serving book and try to generate whatever she can for herself.

But trash talk the most brilliant politician in modern times? You're just not in his league, darling.

The self-appointed leader of the anti-intellectual movement has nothing to offer. She lacks a fundamental understanding of U.S. history and foreign affairs.  And we found out last week that her ex husband or soon-to-be ex-husband pretty much ran the state of Alaska, so any pretense of political achievement has been nullified.

She's good looking, of course, and that helps a lot of unqualified people get elected in this country. But she's pretty much done in the political arena. 

Maybe she and King George should co-host a show analyzing current affairs. Now that would be a comedy no one could afford to miss.

Tea Party's McCarthyism is downright un-American

It's amazing that the Tea Party has any credibility at all.

I mean, really. The crazies at the sparsely attended convention in Tennessee this week on camera called President Obama a "Marxist" and a "Socialist,"  as if they really understood those terms, as if any of it were true. FreedomWorks' Dick Armey indoctrinated his troops well.  

(Such extreme propaganda reminds me of the Scott Brown campaign, which quietly spread the word to the uninformed masses that Martha Coakley was, like Obama, also a "Nazi."

It's fine for any citizen to question the role of government in any matter. But to suggest that Obama is either of those things is patently absurd to the point of ridiculous.

Why won't the mainstream media ask these people to explain how Obama is a Marxist?  Why aren't they asked to explain in detail their objections to the proposed health care reform bill?

Do they know that the proposed health care reform bill has no public option and that means the government would play no role in health care? 

Do they understand that reform is really aimed at curbing the excessive monopolistic power of health insurance companies?

Do they know that if the insurance lobby wins than all of our insurance premiums will likely increase far more than any reform bill would have cost them? 

Do they know that the group that conceived and organizes the Tea Party activities-- the for-profit FreedomWorks -- is funded by a bunch of GOP lobbysist and corporations including Cancer Treatment Centers of America?

No, but even if they did, it would not stop them. They seem content to serve as non-paid lobbyists for the financial and health care insurance industries that have fleeced this nation.  

Why? Let's just say it. What drives their agenda is their hatred of Democrats and in particular, Barack Obama -- not love of country. FreedomWorks' Dick Armey knows how to tap into this hatred to benefit his corporate sponsors. 

Marxist? Socialist? Nazi? 

McCarthyism all over again. 

I wonder if the reporters are too embarrassed to ask Tea Party activists to explain? Or are the networks fearful of being libeled by the GOP spin monsters as part of the 'liberal media elite' -- and face advertising boycotts? Do they have their own marching orders?

As a viewer, I really want to know why they think President Obama is a Marxist and a Nazi. Please ask them, will you?