Saturday, February 18, 2012

WHY ISN'T THE MEDIA MAKING THIS CONNECTION?

So, it seems pretty obvious to me that with all the good economic news—that is the stats that show that the economy is doing much much better than it was when Obama took over the heading-for-another-Great-Depression economy Bush/Cheney created—Republicans and especially the right need other issues to beat Obama.

Chris Christie vetoing the New Jersey legislature's bill making gay marriage legal and wanting it on the ballot in November is a replay of the social issues strategy that got us Bush/Cheney in the first and second place. The idea is those on the right less than enthusiastic about whatever Republican candidate runs will come out anyway because they want to stop gays from having legally stable married lives as the right's way of "defending" marriage (it isn't merely ironic, it's iconic rightwing doublethink).

But the issue all over the media that no one seems to be connecting to the right's election strategy is oil prices. As I pointed out here before, Obama has managed to reduce the USA's dependence on foreign oil much lower than what existed under Bush/Cheney and on top of that demand for oil in the USA is way down. So why the rise in prices?

The media claims, because the rightwing think tanks claim, that it's the rising demand from China and India and other so-called emerging markets. But I think it's pretty obvious that the oil corporations have always been handmaidens of the right's political leaders (or vice versa I guess). It was oil money that got Bush and Cheney elected and kept them in power to a large extent and that led to a lot of the catastrophes they engendered, like the Iraq War.

There is little doubt in my mind that if the economy is improving so much that even the constant repetition of the right's big lie that Obama has ruined the economy when it has been and is the exact opposite doesn't work, and social issues prove not as helpful to the right as they did a decade ago, then  they will use their connections to big oil to eliminate much of the economic benefits of the recovery, by causing most folks to have to spend the extra money that comes with an improving economy on gas and end up feeling like things aren't as good as they actually are.

They've done it before.

22 comments:

JIm said...

Governor Christie objected to the legislators making such a momentous change in marriage law. He prefers a referendom to decide the question, which seems perfectly reasonable.

AlamedaTom said...

Cenk Uygur did a whole segment on this issue on the Young Turks a few days ago. What he showed is that the problem is largely because of unscrupulous speculators. The example is that a guy buys oil futures at $100 a barrel. He only makes money if the price of oil has increased to more than $100 when his futures matures. So, he and his buddies pull out every trick in the book to make sure that oil prices increase. Of course if the price of oil drops to $75 he takes a big loss, so he makes sure that there is no decrease in prices (to the detriment of us, the consumers). Cenk had exactly your worry, which is that by the time the November election comes around gas prices will be at six or seven dollars a gallon, which of course will be blamed on Obama.

~ Willy

JIm said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lally said...

Thanks Willy, I didn't catch that Young Turks episode. Others have pointed out the oil speculators cause in the price rise despite the downturn in demand and dependence (I had to delete the idiot again because his response to the actually statistics was disbelief, as if facts don't matter, which of course is the point in most of what the right propagates as their "reality"). But he big question is why now when oil speculators are always around? The Koch brothers are a perfect example of the kinds of billionaires who are willing to spend any amount to defeat Obama and Democrats in general and even Republicans if they don't toe the party line. They certainly wouldn't mind throwing money into oil speculation etc.

Lally said...

Oh, and as for voting on gay marriage. If voting had been allowed to happen in the states where there were laws against interracial marriage, i.e. throughout the South and Southwest and Rocky Mountain states etc. those laws would have been allowed to stand even longer, maybe even to the present. The more people got used to the idea of interracial marriage being leagl, if not acceptable by everyone, the more interracial marriages there were and thus the snowball effect which now makes interracial marriage seem commonplace. The same has begun to happen in some areas with gay marriage. My North Jersey New York metropolitan area community has the highest number of both interracial marriages and gay civil unions for a community this size anywhere. Those gay civil unions should be allowed to marry unconditionally and voters in South Jersey and other areas of the state who are more conservative and are against gay marriage and probably were and still might be against interracial marriages should not be able to oppress others. That's the point of our Constitution. To protect the rights of individuals from rulers and the mob. Et-endlessly-cetera.

Robert G. Zuckerman said...

Homosexuality has been around since and before recorded history - it is a part of human nature. It has certainly been around since the founding of this country and, as such, is protected by the Constitution and upholded by the founding principles of this country. Christie's referendum is a tactic and should not be allowed to stand.

JIm said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Robert G. Zuckerman said...

oops, i shoulda said "upheld", I was in the Norm Crosby/Leo Gorcy mode.

JIm said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Robert G. Zuckerman said...

Jim throws out figures and assertions with no credible backup. So predictible.

JIm said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lally said...

Man is the blog stalker tedious or what? Every time anyone takes the time to call him on his lies he changes the subject and then claims no one ever calls him on his lies. That rightwing Congressman from Orange County CA was on Bill Maher's a few or several weeks ago and he was doing the same thing. Bill and others would state the facts and he would go right back to standing up for the usual lies and calling anyone who doubted them crazy! The right has totally lost any concept of what the real world actually is. It would be pitiable if it weren't so damaging to the world we all have to live in.

JIm said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
JIm said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Robert G. Zuckerman said...

There are many Christian homosexuals, including priests. As are there rabbis and others in all walks of life, all ethnicities, genders and species. Homosexuality is an inclination naturally part of God's world--otherwise it wouldn't be here since time began. The only abomination here is Jim's narrowminded, heartless hatefulness.

JIm said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
JIm said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
JIm said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
JIm said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
JIm said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Robert G. Zuckerman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert G. Zuckerman said...

This may or may not be the case here, but it has been long evidenced that when it comes to homosexuality and infidelity, the most vocal opponents, denouncers and deniers are often themselves practitioners.