The Empty Chair

So, most of you have heard about the odd performance piece Clint Eastwood put on at the Republican National Convention, where he cross examined an imaginary President Obama signified by an empty chair. I like Clint, even if I don't agree with his politics and, as Bill Maher pointed out the other night, he went up there with no prompter and a chair and he got good responses from the audience, so you gotta give him credit for stepping out there. But it wasn't till I was watching The Daily Show with Jon Stewart this weekend that I realized the significance of Eastwood's conversation with the empty chair. A significance that is obviously lost on the Republicans themselves.

As Jon Stewart put it, "Eastwood finally revealed the cognitive dissonance that is the beating heart and soul and fiction of [the Republican] party.   . . . I could never wrap my head around why the world and the President, that the Republicans describe bears so little resemblance to the world and the President that I experience. And now I know why. There is a President Obama that only Republicans can see. And while the President, the rest of us see has issues, apparently this President, invisible to many, is bent on our wholesale destruction." This theory is startlingly true. And it's been true since the campaign began. No, let's be honest, it's been true since January 20th, 2009. The GOP has based the majority of its attacks, not on the actual policies President Obama has championed or put into place, but instead, they have continually referred to a mythical, alternate reality version of Obama. Always exaggerating anything he said or did, and shockingly, often telling outright lies!

I can't even count the number of 'scandals' pushed, and often generated from thin air by Fox News and other GOP leaning sources that were completely untrue. And I mean proven false by objective investigation. But Republicans, and especially Fox News, know one very important thing about Americans and the media. They know that a salacious lie told today will be remembered, even if it's completely debunked tomorrow. Get your version out there first and proclaim it loudly and repeatedly. Then even if irrefutable proof arises later, you simply let it go without comment and your viewers and supporters will never even notice. Any proof offered later will be considered liberal propaganda. It's simple, and it works.

Look, I have a number of issues with Obama and his policies. I'm ticked off that the Gitmo gulag is still in operation. I'm ticked that we have made it OK to execute Americans via drone with little oversight. I'm ticked that we are still expected to be in Afghanistan for years to come, when we really aren't doing any lasting good and really don't have any control over the stability of the Karzai government. I'm pissed that the Bush tax cuts are still in place and continuing to feed the deficit. That's just what comes immediately to mind. Though even some of those items bear the fingerprints of the GOP. My point is that I can understand reasoned disagreement with the policies of this President. What I cannot understand is how much time is spent by Conservatives ranting and raving about policies Obama never proposed or on intentional misinterpretations of policies that actually were implemented. If we can't even agree on the basic facts, then how can we ever agree on anything else?

As an American, you must decide this November who you will support for President. I'm not asking that you blindly vote to reelect Barack Obama. But I do ask that you base your voting decision on facts. Not sound bites. Not some off the cuff remarks by Mike Huckabee or Sean Hannity. Not some unconfirmed headline you read on the Drudge Report. Not a Crossroads GPS funded attack ad. Base it on facts, that is all I ask. Wanna know the details on past and current fiscal policies and how they affect the deficit now and in the future? Actually go to the official sites and find the info! Don't pull it from breitbart.com! Visit the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is the non-partisan organization that is relied on by both parties for 'scoring' legislation. You want to hear some level-headed analysis of a Supreme Court ruling? Don't wait for Nancy Grace to enlighten you, go to the SCOTUS Blog, where experienced law scholars parse through the dense rulings and discuss the repercussions without adding partisan spin. Hear about a scandal that sounds shocking? Then investigate it through non partisan sources, or at least across a wide swath of sources, to see if maybe the reason it's so shocking is because it's made up! Vote for who you think is best for America, going forward. Just make sure you're basing your decision on factual information and not single sourced from a partisan pundit with an axe to grind.

Partisan

Over the years, as I've posted opinion pieces and commented on various online articles, I have often been chided for being 'partisan'. That got me thinking about what it really means to be 'partisan'. Well, the best place to start when debating terminology is, of course, a dictionary. This is the primary definition of 'Partisan', according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

"a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance."

Now the first part of that is pretty light-weight and would apply to any political preference. So I'm assuming that we're more focused on the second part. That's the real issue. Not that you have an opinion, but whether that opinion is supported and rational. Do you consider other views or do you cleve to your own despite all evidence?

By that reasoning, which you are free to dispute, I don't believe I am partisan, as a general rule. Sure I rail against conservative policies and Republicans, but I do so because I disagree with the point in question, not simply because they are conservatives and Republicans. It doesn't mean I mindlessly support Democrats and liberals on all issues. The truth is, the reason I'm usually in opposition to conservative positions is simple; they don't make sense. It's not that I dream Democratic dreams, or that I have a man-crush on President Obama. It's that conservative policies are so often focused on effect instead of effectiveness.

For example, I do not support gay rights because I'm in thrall to the Gay Liberation Front! I support it because it is right and just to do so. Because, while I respect anyone's right to be personally grossed out by the idea of homosexuality, I will never accept the view that a gay individual is any less of a person or citizen than anyone else simply because of who they are attracted to.

I don't support every Democratic or liberal idea, but I do find myself on that side of more arguments than not. Doesn't make me partisan, just means I have opinions that are more liberal than conservative. But the important distinction is that I take each issue as it comes and then make a decision based on the information and what makes sense to me. I don't do it because Rachel Maddow tells me to, though I will value the insight I get from her opinion because she has earned my trust and respect. Others have not. Yes I have a lot to say about certain people and the noxious drivel they produce, but that's not because they are the 'other side', it's because they are wrong. Or at least they continually champion ideas that don't make sense to me.

What inspires my most frustrated rants are ideas or policies that do not seem to follow any logical thread. Or put another way, it's like someone declaring triumphantly that their equation equals 100, yet no matter how many times I look at the numbers, they only add up to 83. A great example is the financial collapse. I am amazed when I stumble upon people who will declare with absolute sincerity that the root of the problem was government interference and how the banks were forced to give out mortgages to people who couldn't afford them. Huh? Sure it fits a certain preconceived notion about 'big government', but it makes no sense! There were no Congressional or Presidential orders issued to the banks demanding they grant $500K mortgages to couples earning $20K a year. It never happened. It's a figment of their imaginations. Not to mention that the financial industry has tremendous lobbying power, and they would never let something like that pass in the first place. No matter how often or loudly some individuals proclaim it to be true, it just doesn't add up. Unfortunately that won't stop them from continuing to declare it as fact.

This, to me, is what being partisan is all about. Standing by a notion despite all evidence against it. Championing a theory that is unsupported by the facts. In short, someone "exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance" to a political party or popular theory simply because it fits the narrative you are comfortable with. Look, sometimes the facts are just against you. Sometimes no matter how much you wish they proved your side right, they just don't. When that happens, you step back and re-evaluate.

A Platform in Knots

I can't be the only one who gets dizzy trying to follow some of the twisted and contradictory Republican policy positions. I've always noted a few that didn't make sense, but it seems to be getting worse. I'm not sure if it's because they are trying to appeal to too many different groups within the party or not, but it sure is confusing.

The backbone of conservative thinking is 'small government'. The idea that the federal government only does the minimum needed. It's generally talked about as keeping the government out of your life. And yet, there appear to be a number of caveats to this idea. They are famously on record for wanting to remove regulations on financial institutions, roll back environmental protections and any number of other corporate related areas. Yet, oddly, the small government zeal ends rather abruptly at the edge of your personal life. And it is odd, since I would think that keeping government out of your personal business would be more important than keeping it out of corporate business.

And yet there are GOP led initiatives to deny, by law, the right of two people who love each other from getting married simply because they are the same sex. The reason for this seems to always boil down to either theological interpretations or just the fact that it makes some people uncomfortable. Neither is a good reason to deny citizens the same rights as their fellow Americans. There are a lot of things in this world that make me uncomfortable, but you don't see me trying to make them all illegal. I've always loosely interpreted the idea of 'liberty' as the right to live your life as you want, as long as it doesn't violate someone else's rights. Two men or two women getting married has no impact on the rights of Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee or any other conservative, as far as I can tell. So, to my mind, it's not any of their business. I'm sorry, but being creeped out by homosexuality doesn't give you the right to make gay Americans second class citizens.

Then we have the fringes of the anti-abortion debate. Since the conservatives haven't been able to overturn Roe v. Wade after 40 years, they decided to make the process as psychologically and physically stressful as possible for any woman attempting to exercise their Constitutional rights. So we end up with bills like the one Virginia proposed recently. It would have had the VA state government dictate medically unnecessary procedures, even against medical advice or the objections of the patient, to include an INTERNAL, vaginal ultrasound. In other words, a state government wanted to force a woman to undergo a procedure whereby she is penetrated against her will. That's what you call a government that's not just small enough to drown in a tub, but actually small enough to fit inside a vagina! The bill was only scuttled, after passing all the way to the Governor's desk, due to a sudden deluge of national attention and outrage. Similar bills, without the penetration component, have already passed in a number of other states. These exist for only one purpose, to coerce and psychologically abuse a woman when she is at her most vulnerable. Sounds exactly like small government to me!

This election cycle we've seen yet another example of twisted policy, this time about birth control of all things. Yes, we are suddenly debating the availability of birth control in the year 2012. When did this become controversial, outside of Vatican City? Condoms have been in use since perhaps as far back as the 15th century, in some form or another, and female contraception has a history that stretches to ancient Egypt. This isn't a 'Liberal' agenda item, it's established and accepted history. One thing it isn't though is the business of any government or faith to dictate! I'm unable to grasp how a party that claims to value individual liberty can turn around and begin making noises about the legality of birth control. But the discussion gets really psychedelic when people like Rick Santorum starts babbling about the availability of birth control being related to increases in abortion rates. Huh?! I'm no doctor, but I'm pretty sure that contraception, by its very design and definition, prevents fertilization of an egg and thus any resulting fetus. If you're against abortion, than you damn well should be Pro-Contraception!! Just trying to parse the conservative logic on this is enough to induce a migraine.

On yet another front is the constant push to wedge theology into government and use that to dictate a specific moral view for the entire country. Santorum, and he's hardly alone in this mindset, recently declared that, "We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. ... And those truths don't change just because people's attitudes may change". First off, who's this 'we' of which you speak? Not sure if he realizes this or not, but America's citizens represent just about every theological point on the compass. In other words, 'we' aren't all 'Judeo-Christian,' shocking as that may be to hear. Secondly, I'm sorry, I was under the impression that the Constitution was based on the laws of man, not a completely unsupported theological text filled with barbaric customs that include stoning, fratricide and slavery, among many others. Shall we bring those back too? After all, they are also "biblical truth," are they not? Oh, I forgot! You get to pick and choose what parts to live by, don't you? Look, if you are for small government, you can't then be for dictating theology as policy or as the basis for national law. Faith is a personal choice and that's where it should begin and end.

It's this sort of contradictory thinking that drives me nuts, short drive that it is. I don't expect absolute consistency, but this is just a spaghetti bowl of random ideas. Maybe it stems from trying to house both ultra-conservative evangelicals under the same roof as secular moderates. But whatever the reason, it's insane. To paraphrase a line from one of my favorite movies, you keep using that phrase, 'small government.' "I don't think it means what you think it means."

Motivational Dysfunction

I have to give Republicans their due. Without a doubt, the GOP is the clear winner when it comes to playing the game of politics. While individual Democrats are skilled, the party as a whole often seems completely out of its depth. Mostly I think that comes from being much less unified than the GOP. The Democrats are far more inclusive of views that fall outside the core party platform, making unified movement challenging at times. A bigger tent, as some like to say.  The Republicans may snipe at each other around primary time, but when dealing with a Democratic challenge, they close ranks like an ancient Greek phalanx!

I don't know how much is follow-the-leader and how much is good old fashioned authoritarian decree, but ever since the Obama Administration took office the GOP has moved as a single entity. They recognized that the economic collapse of 2008 gave them a priceless opportunity to attack the new, popular President from day one. Despite not being sworn into office till after the financial bailout (TARP) had already been passed, the GOP immediately began laying full responsibility for everything related to the economic collapse at Obama's doorstep. Phrasing even TARP related criticism as if it was all Obama's idea and neatly sidestepping their own votes for the Bush era package. This would become the Republican model for everything that has come since.

Despite a stimulus package that economists have repeatedly claimed created or saved upwards of 2.7 million jobs, the GOP to this day continues to deride it as useless. They did this even as a number of them quietly submitted requests for stimulus money for projects they themselves explicitly claimed would create jobs! But publicly the Republicans maintained a solid front in claiming the stimulus did nothing and that this proved that government was powerless to do anything positive, thus making any attempt at passing a second stimulus a political impossibility. From the beginning, the GOP economic recovery plan has consisted of only a single refrain, cut taxes on the 'job creators'. These would be the same 'job creators' who were, and still are, laying off workers not because of high taxes, but because of limited demand. So there they were, proposing policies that would benefit them politically by buddying up to big business while ensuring that the economic status quo remained undisturbed. Put simply, the GOP claimed the President was at fault for the continuing economic trouble while simultaneously blocking any proposal he put forth that might have made a difference. I'd rate the GOP at one out of ten for job performance, but ten out of ten for political finesse!

The problem is that I don't think any of the men with a hand in framing our Constitution ever envisioned a situation where roughly half the legislature would see political advantage in maintaining a recession level economy. But that's where we are! I'm sure there are those who will read this and scream 'partisanship'! But think about it, who would benefit from a recovering economy? Sure the GOP could try and claim some hand in it, but it's pretty widely accepted that voters will judge a President on the state of the economy. If it's booming, he can claim credit, no matter which party controls the House or Senate. If it's a bust, he must also take the blame, no matter who controls the House or Senate. So the GOP has everything to gain and nothing to lose, politically anyway, by maintaining the current state of affairs. They know that if Obama goes into the 2012 election with unemployment at 9%, it will seriously hurt his chances for re-election. And, unfortunately for all those millions of Americans looking for work, this is all about elections. Senate Minority Leader McConnell has explicitly said, on several occasions, that preventing Obama from winning a second term is his primary political goal. I have to give him points for being honest, but this reminds me of a line from the movie Ocean's 11. Rusty is confronting Danny about trying to pull this huge casino heist while simultaneously winning back his ex-wife in the same operation. Rusty asks him, "So what happens if you can't have them both? Which one are you going to choose?" Senator McConnell, the most powerful Republican in the Senate, has clearly stated what his choice would be if forced to pick between improving the economy or defeating President Obama's re-election. The truth is that the GOP, as a whole, has long since made their choice and it's not looking good for the economy.

OK for Some

I think what most surprises me about this whole Anthony Weiner sexting scandal is how much press it's generated. There have been a lot of scandals in DC over the last decade, yet I don't recall any scandal since Clinton getting this much attention for this long. Why? Yes, I know, he sent salacious messages and some dirty pics to a few women he met via his Twitter and Facebook feeds. Yes, as a married man, this was wrong. But . . . I still don't see the fuel for this perpetual media machine. I suppose the highly partisan climate of the last three years is part of it. That's obviously behind the vocal, and quite hypocritical calls for Weiner to resign. I say hypocritical because there wasn't, and still isn't, much concern over Senator David Vitter's own scandal involving his frequenting the 'DC Madame'. One report I heard said that there was a record of a call by Vitter from the floor of the Senate during a vote! What makes it worse, in my estimation, is that he's another of those holier-than-though Republicans who constantly talks up the sanctity of marriage. Call me old fashioned, but I think a married, 'family values' Senator frequenting prostitutes is a bit more damning than sending a picture of your privates to a woman you've been flirting with online. Neither will win you any awards, but the latter has the distinct saving grace of not being illegal. And yet, Vitter is still a Senator and none of his Republican colleagues, so enraged by Weiner's indiscretion, have uttered a peep against him. Curious, eh?

I really do wonder how much of this is due to the 'ew' factor. Is it mostly because so many are shocked at the whole social networking angle of Weiners scandal? I think some people are just weirded out by the online affair aspect. Would there be as much attention if he had just been caught schtupping a member of his staff? I seriously doubt it. Especially considering how quickly the airwaves went deaf to the John Ensign scandal. Don't recall that? Let me refresh your memory. Senator Ensign only recently resigned from office, and rather suddenly at that. As luck would have it, his last day in office was the day before he was set to testify in front of the Senate Ethics Committee to face questions of not just his infidelities with a married staffer, but also the allegedly illegal ways he went about trying to keep it secret. Including violating lobbying laws to get the husband of the woman he was sleeping with, also a staffer and family friend, a lobbying gig after Ensign canned them both. (That's class, isn't it? Caught sleeping with a staffer so you fire her and her husband!) And let's not forget the roughly $90,000 he talked his wealthy parents into giving to his lover and her husband to sweep the whole thing under the rug. The Ethics Committee had so much evidence that, even after Ensign skipped out of the Senate, they still handed it all off to the Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission for consideration of criminal charges. Now, call me partisan, but that's more than just a case of infidelity!

The problem, as I see it, is that we have never had an actual guide to go by when gauging the severity of personal indiscretions by politicians. It's always been a crap shoot. Often the deciding factor had more to do with the persons position, power and friends than what was actually done. My own personal yardstick starts with the most obvious question; were laws broken? Considering that we are talking about the people who draw up laws for the rest of us, it's only fair to expect them to be held to the same rules of conduct as the rest of the nation. Next would come professional ethics, such as the rules of the House and Senate. These I'm a little more flexible on, as some are obviously more trivial than others. But there's no question that getting down and dirty with your lover in your Capital Hill office would edge across the line into unacceptable behavior for a member of Congress. But a 10 minutes phone call from that same office or an email from a private account is more of a gray area. After all, most places of business recognize your right to an occasional few minutes of personal time. That doesn't mean anything goes, but there's more leeway there. It gets extremely gray after that, since much of the outrage seems to boil down to what each individual finds personally offensive and that's the very definition of subjective! What we most need, however, is consistency! Set some rules for behavior. Lay out what is your personal life and what is unarguably a professional matter. Personal mistakes in judgement may not say good things about you, but in the end, they are just that, personal. It's only when you cross the line into professional behavior that it becomes more than just a tabloid sensation.

Probably the biggest issue used to beat up Congressman Weiner is one that is the same for all of these scandals; lying. Once you get past the purely political criticisms and the disgust from those who can't get past the basic idea of sending anatomical pictures over the internet, you are left with this one complaint. For 10 days he stood in front of the cameras and lied about not sending the picture that had just gone public. He always hedged on the question of whether the picture was of him or not, which did stand out as a bit odd at the time. But should we really be surprised that he lied about it? And does a lie about a highly personal matter mean you are generally untrustworthy? Some would certainly hold the line and say that the lie means he can never be trusted again. I disagree. We all lie. Some of us are better than others about it, but we all lie occasionally. The two times we are most likely to lie are to protect someone, either physically or emotionally, and when we are protecting ourselves from personal embarrassment. And the more acute and potentially damaging that embarrassment, the more likely we are to lie. All of us. We may pretend we are pinnacles of virtue, but very few of us can truly claim innocence. And when all is said and done, if there is one place I would expect someone to lie, it's when a room full of reporters asks you if you sent a photo of your obviously happy johnson attempting to escape your underwear. I don't think that means you can never be trusted. I think that makes you human. That lie may be wrong, but it doesn't mean that same person will be any more likely to lie about a policy position than another politician. Believe me, I'd consider a law ejecting elected officials for documented lies! This would also have the added benefit of making term limits redundant by guaranteeing constant turnover in the houses of Congress.

As I write this, reports are trickling out that Congressman Weiner is resigning. On one level, it's certainly his choice what's best for him and his wife. On another level, I'm a bit ticked. I feel like he was forced into this, not because it was a heinous act, but because the nature of it made people uncomfortable and it was politically expedient for the Democrats to sacrifice him. By allowing and in fact enabling Weiner's critics the Democrats have once again capitulated to Republicans and validated their rampant hypocrisy. They could have at least put full pressure on Vitter to do the same! But I suppose Rachel Maddow was right, as she put it in one of her segments, I guess 'it's all right if you're a Republican'.

The Government You Deserve

I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking, "I told you so". As last year's mid-terms approached and the crop of far Right candidates were looking more and more likely to win big, I saw it coming. Everyone should have, but Americans were, as usual, impatient and fickle. Two years of the Obama administration and Democrats in control (Senate excluded, of course) hadn't magically levitated us out of a deep recession yet, so obviously it was time to reverse the gears again. Well America did switch horses in the middle of the race and what a fine mess it's creating.

Republicans retook control of the House and promised that Jobs were the top priority. So what did they do with their first bills? A symbolic 'repeal' of Health Reform, which had no chance of passing the Senate or being signed by the President. Followed by . . . wait for it, two bills focused on abortion. And not just the usual conservative anti-abortion style legislation. No, they decided that the best way to restrict abortions was to try and redefine what 'rape' actually meant! They actually tried to do it by making a distinction between 'rape' and 'forcible rape'! Let me quote from the New Oxford American Dictionary: Rape (noun)"forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with [them] without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them." I'm pretty sure that would be 'forcible rape'. I'm sure if one of these Republicans had a friend or family member who was raped, they would consider that 'forcible'. Welcome to the Republican controlled House, where we redefine the English language to fit our social policies!

Remember those promises newly minted Speaker Boehner and his colleagues made to 'fix' the House when they took over? Such as citing Constitutional precedent in all bills? Promise broken from day one. Promise to cut $100 Billion from the budget in their first year? Reality finally sets in and that number is dropping fast. Promise Broken. A promise to institute an 'Open Rules' process on all legislation so there would be debate and a chance to propose amendments? Promise broken day one. It took them over a month before they finally got around to keeping this promise, but I wouldn't hold my breath on it being repeated after that.

What about State governments? A wave of Republican Governors were voted into office. Well, in Wisconsin we have Governor Scott Walker who has decided to address a budget shortfall by slashing public worker pay and benefits. But that's just the semi-normal part of the legislation. Another part of the proposed bill would strip many unions of their collective bargaining rights. A move that has zero budgetary effect, but certainly a large political effect. Rachel Maddow put it well on a recent show where she noted that Wisconsin is not in tough budgetary straits. Or they weren't until Governor Walker gave away about $140 Million in business tax incentives immediately after taking office. A number that is eerily close, oddly enough, to the current state shortfall. So while Governor Walker is attempting to make this a budgetary crises, what this really is about is politics. Union busting, not to save money, but as a direct attack on organizations who generally support Democratic candidates. Think this is just my misinterpretation? Then why did Gov. Walker exempt local police, firefighters and state troopers from his labor union attacks? Oddly enough, these are the three groups who supported his election campaign. I'm sure that's just a coincidence though, right?

So welcome, America, to your newly elected conservative government! I just hope you weren't actually counting on them to help with the jobs crisis or the economy. After all, why work to address the 9% unemployment rate and quickly widening wage gap when you have the chance to redefine rape and strip unions of their bargaining rights? Welcome America, not to the government you wanted, but rather to the government you deserve!

Update: If you would like a good followup to the Wisconsin story, I suggest this.

Lame Duck, Better than No Duck at All

A surprisingly productive 'Lame Duck' session of Congress has come to an end. It's been called the most productive Lame Duck session ever, though I can't speak to that myself. But it's without a doubt the most productive this Congress has been over the last year. That is the sad part. After a year of near absolute stone walling on even the most vanilla bills and nominations, it's astonishing how fast things can be passed under threat of being forced to work over the holidays. Democrats certainly have their issues, but I must say that the way the GOP crumbles like overcooked ginger snaps every Christmas is both pathetic and endlessly amusing. So much for integrity and sticking by your values.

"I will not compromise!" (Generic GOP Senator)

"We will stay and work through the holidays till we get this settled!" (Dem Majority Leader)

"Hey, look at the time! Let's ink this deal!" (Generic GOP Senator)

To add to the fun, there are a number of GOP Congresspersons really ticked off at how well they were played this Holiday season. This includes the ever amusing and often nonsensical Representatives Steve King (R-Iowa) and Michele Bachmann (R- Min). Seeing as they are deeply offended by pretty much anything that doesn't originate from their own spokesman, I generally ignore them both. A shame voters in their states failed to do the same. The general sentiment is that Democrats didn't play fair by actually trying to legislate after the mid-terms. How dare they continue to work till closing time! The GOP has this weird idea that Congressional work should stop the instant the elections are certified. I'm sure they wouldn't feel that way if the November results were reversed, but hypocrisy is a respected tradition for Republicans, so no surprise there. Democrats do it as well, but rarely with the same style and commitement. What is interesting is that at least one Republican House member, Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kansas), has 'tweeted' her intention to re-introduce a motion to dismantle the Lame Duck altogether. In other words Congress would adjourn for the elections and not reconvene till January, thus giving us two months without a functioning Congress. Sorry, I meant to say sitting Congress. It hasn't really functioned consistently for several years now.

Talk about 'taking my ball and going home'! It's these stupid things that have wasted way too much political time lately. Ideas that are pointless and only matter to specific people or parties at this specific moment in time. I might, I stress might, understand if the Dems had rushed through a bunch of controversial bills in December over the unified opposition of Republicans, but they didn't. Remember the Dems only really controlled the House. The Senate, while having a Dem majority, has that wonderful filibuster rule that allows the minority to pretty much prevent anything they don't like from even being discussed. This has been invoked at least 136 times during the now ended session of Congress. More than doubling its use from any previous session. But the real kicker is that these bills that passed were only controversial politically. Polls showed Americans firmly behind them all and even most Republicans would admit that they supported them in principle. But they blocked them out of pure political calculation.

- Tax Cut Bill to extend the current tax rates for a further 2 years. Passed with 37 Republican votes. Not surprising considering it was made up heavily of pro-Republican tax provisions, many of which will grow the deficit significantly over the next few years. Typical of Republican 'fiscal responsibility'.

- 'New START' Treaty to renew the US-Russian nuclear inspection and arms reduction agreement. Passed with 13 Republican votes.

- 9/11 First Responder bill to provide healthcare assistance to those who developed serious illnesses as a direct result of their weeks and months breathing in toxic dust at the ground zero World Trade Center site. Incidentally this bill was fully paid for yet seemed to have been nearly killed by Republican obstruction till a last surge, led by Jon Stewart of the Daily Show among others, shamed Congress into action. In the end it garnered Yes votes from ALL Republican Senators.

- Bill to Repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell', which had been fought tooth and nail despite as much as 70% public support and the support of the President, Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Passed with 8 Republican votes.

Think it Through

Am I the only one who has noticed the flood of vague and/or unworkable policy positions from Conservatives, especially Tea Party candidates? It's starting to get on my nerves. Particularly as some of the most fringy candidates are sheltering in the friendly embrace of the conservative media so as not to be faced with the indignity of an inquisitive thought. In that climate they are able to say almost anything and not be asked any inconvenient questions like, "How would you go about that?" or "Could you clarify what you meant when you said . . . ?" Therein lies the problem. Candidates are making claims that go virtually unchallenged. Not that this is entirely new since the Republican party as a whole has been doing that ever since they lost big in 2008. However some of the ideas that are fashionable on the Right are getting a bit on the extreme side.

One of the Tea Party favorites is the idea of privatizing Social Security. You hear this popping up all over the campaign trail. Some even use the euphemism of 'personalizing' rather than privatizing. Sounds better, but it means the same thing. This plan would move your Social Security nest-egg out of the Federal government and into the private sector. In other words, into the Stock Market. As I understand it you would manage it like a 401K account by picking which investment vehicles to invest your bundle of retirement cash in. Of course it takes only a brief glance in the nation's rearview mirror to see a glaring example of why this is a stupid idea. Just remember the near collapse of the financial system only a few years ago. You don't even need to flex your imagination since we just saw it in brilliant technicolor. For something that's supposed to be a minimum, reliable retirement income, risking it in the stock market may not be the best idea. Yes you could do well, but you may not and you can't really plan on the best case scenario. One other thing to think about, what do we do as a nation if a crash does wipe out a large percentage of the privatized Social Security nest eggs? Odds are, and you know it's true, that the government would end up stepping in to help reimburse those who lost most or all of their investments. So any savings to the country would be wiped away when we bail out retirees. It's called 'cause & effect' and it transcends all political parties and philosophies.

A perennial favorite of Conservatives is what I call the 'Magic Tax Cut'. According to Conservative lore, the bigger and more wide ranging the tax cut, the more the economy will grow! This is, of course, impossible. The 'Magic Tax Cut' also pays for itself! This is, of course, impossible. Doesn't stop them from pretending it's true though. Less taxes means less money into the government. Now if the economy is booming then it will equal out to some degree. But as a stimulant to a sluggish economy, it's not that effective. The economy runs on consumers spending money. The more money we have to spend, the more cash is pumped into the economy. A tax cut is only going to put a few dollars a pay check into consumers' hands. Nowhere near enough to make a difference in spending habits. But wait, just like all things in the universe, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In the case of a tax cut that means that the government will take in much less money than it otherwise would. The one way to make tax cuts less problematic is to make cuts somewhere else so that they are paid for. This rarely happens, particularly with Republicans. No politician wants to undermine the propaganda value of cutting taxes by also cutting services. In fact both tax cuts instituted by the G.W Bush administration are partly to blame for current deficits as they were never offset by any cuts. In other words, un-paid for. Sadly amusing to now hear many of the same Conservatives that were so supportive of the Bush tax cuts now moaning at the insanity of expenditures that aren't paid for. Funny how perspective changes everything.

Look, we all love the idea of less money siphoned from our paychecks by the government. It's also a great talking point as it feeds the idea that 'The Man' is taking our hard earned cash for some shadowy purpose that doesn't benefit us. But think about it for a minute. Where do you think the money comes from to pave the roads? Fund the Police, Fire and Rescue services? Help clean up after a natural disaster? Fund agencies that test our food, water and air for safety? Protect and maintain parks, not just Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon but also the national battlefields and other parks? Provide security at border crossings, airports and seaports? Fund our global military commitments? Finance a public education system so kids of any economic background can get a basic education, not to mention the publicly funded colleges and universities? Student loan guarantees? Medicare for older Americans who would have a hell of a time getting affordable health insurance on the open market? Any of these things sound familiar? Contrary to the propaganda, taxes are not inherently evil. Yes there is some waste, inevitable whenever humans are involved, but most of it goes to support the things we use every single day. And yes, we all have things we wish our taxes didn't pay for, but so what? That's the price of living in a country like America. We should stay on top of our government to make sure they are spending our money as wisely as possible, but we have to stop acting like taxes are always evil and that 'Public' means 'Free'.

Then we have one of my personal favorite Conservative mantras; Small Government. One well known Conservative, Grover Norquist, famously quipped "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub". What I find so annoying is that the people who proudly proclaim support for this idea are the same ones who are demanding that homosexuals be barred from legally being married. They are the same people who support kicking gay service members out of the military simply for their sexual preference. They are the ones ready to enshrine the Ten Commandments into law and push other Christian doctrine on a secular nation made up of large numbers of non-Christians. They are the same people who think that once an egg is fertilized that the government assumes control of a woman's reproductive system. Some of the current crop of Conservatives are even now claiming that a woman be forced to carry their rapist's child or a pregnancy from incest. Sharon Angle, Tea Party candidate for Senate in Nevada, actually stated that it was God's plan and a woman in this situation should "make lemonade from lemons". This is the small government many Conservatives want. A government with no ability to regulate corporations, but with the right to dictate citizens' personal choices. That's not small government, that's dictatorial government.

There are many more items I could pick on, but the bottom line is that when a politician makes a statement, even if it does resonate with you on some level, think it through. Follow the train of logic, if one even exists. Don't just take it at face value and assume they've already checked all the angles. The only angle they're really concerned with is the one that gets them into office. Just like a PR firm, a politician is trying to grab you with catchy phrases and emotional hooks. And a politician who is campaigning for office is not concerned with accuracy or workability. It's about motivating you to vote for them. A great example of this is health reform. Republicans will freely admit support for most of the individual parts of the law, yet in the media they are blathering on about "Repeal & Replace". Believe me, if they actually could repeal it, highly unlikely, they would replace it with something almost identical, but with a more flowery name. Of course to repeal it would require not just control of both houses of Congress, but a solid 2/3 majority in both to ensure an override of the inevitable Presidential veto. So you see, a politician can promise you anything he wants, but that doesn't mean he can or even wants to actually do it.

We have lots of problems and few, if any, have solutions so simple that they will fit on a bumper sticker. Cutting taxes will not, by itself, fix the economy or take millions off the unemployment roles. Tax cuts are also not without cost. And less money into the government means less money for the things we all demand our government do. It's fine to believe in small government, but if you do then you better be able to tell us what you're willing to do without. You can't support a government small enough to "drown in a bathtub" yet continue to pretend that it can do everything it does now. And if you really want a smaller government presence, then start by keeping it out of our personal lives. It has no place dictating personal choices that do no harm to others.  We, as voting citizens, have to hold all candidates and sitting politicians accountable for what they say and demand that they tell us how they plan to implement these grand ideas. What many candidates most fear is that voters will actually question their statements and realize that the only thing beneath the catchy tag line is their own personal ambition.

Party First

I try very hard to be open minded when listening to interviews and speeches. It doesn't mean I expect them to change my mind, but I don't want to be the type of person who ignores anything that doesn't match my preconceived ideas and occasionally I do learn something. But any respect I may have had for Conservative ideas, politicians or pundits has been stripped to the bone over the last few years. Particularly since the last Presidential election, intelligent discourse from Conservatives has gone out the window. I can't speak for their private correspondence, but in public they are all about extremism, absolutism and misinformation. Ironically, these are some of the same charges they make about their opponents. This isn't the normal political theater, this is more like political farce.

I believe it primarily emerged from pure fear. Fear that a moderate, young, articulate black man was swept into office on a wave of popular support. To Conservatives, with the loss of control in both House and Senate, this must have looked like the apocalypse. It was complicated further when this new President actually was willing to incorporate old Republican ideas for health reform and other pressing issues. While this would mean that Conservatives could actually expect to be able to get some of their policies incorporated in Administration legislation it also meant that they would get little to no credit from the passage of these compromise bills. And that would put them in a lousy position going into the next election cycle. They needed to stand out from the Democrats, not be in a coalition with them. So they fell back on the only weapons they had left: obstructionism, fear and misinformation. They immediately dug in their heels, circled the wagons and stood in absolute opposition to absolutely everything.

Some will take exception to my characterization of the President as a 'Moderate', but that's merely a result of 18 months of ludicrous hyperbole spewed by Conservatives into any microphone they could find. Over and over the President has incorporated ideas formerly championed by Republicans in years past. In fact one of the most controversial provisions in the Health Reform bill, the Individual Mandate, was an idea originally proposed by Republicans during the Clinton era health reform fight. And that was not the only one. The President and Democrats in Congress also compromised over and over with their Republican colleagues on virtually every piece of legislation in the vain hope that they could get even token support for their proposals. The result? Republicans began fighting against their own ideas and calling them radical and extremist! I've seen parades of split screen speeches where prominent Republicans made diametrically opposed arguments separated by, in some cases, less than a year! On one side is Republican X calling for adoption of this great idea and on the other the same person calling the very same idea Socialist, extremist and the end of civilization as we know it. The only thing that surprised me more than watching such outrageous displays of hypocrisy was seeing crowds of protesters who actually took these idiots seriously. These people either didn't realize how false the speakers were being or didn't care as long as it fell into their preconceived narrative. Final proof of the absurdity of Conservative's charges of extremism is the fact that every one of these supposed 'Left wing extremist' bills was met with frustration and disappointment from Liberals who watched compromise after compromise gut the ideas they most cared about, such as the 'Public Option/Single Payer' plan. So if the President and Democrats are so extreme in their policies, then please explain to me why middle of the road Liberals were so underwhelmed with the results? Calling these policies 'extremist' makes for catchy sound bites, but bears little resemblance to reality.

For over a year and a half Conservatives have used every trick in the rule book to block not just final votes on legislation but even motions to bring bills to the floor for discussion. I can't see how their actions could be judged as anything but pure obstructionism for its own sake. This session of Congress has seen the Senate Filibuster, whereby the minority party can block majority action if they can control a mere 41% of the voting members, invoked more than twice as often as any other year in US history. Republicans in the Senate have blocked or attempted to block almost every piece of legislation proposed by the Democrats. And in many of the other cases they still threatened to Filibuster. Senate Democrats have reached the point of just assuming that ANY legislation will require 60 votes to pass. These Filibusters had little to do with policy disagreements and were all about doing everything possible to stop a popular President from accomplishing anything. Even at the expense of the nation they are supposed to be serving. How do I know this? Because of the unprecedented frequency that Filibusters have been used and the vanishingly rare occurrences of Republicans breaking ranks to vote 'Yes'. In a normal Congressional session it is commonplace for individual Senators and small blocks to vote contrary to the bulk of the Republican or Democratic party. It's normal for moderate Conservatives to occasionally agree with moderate Liberals. But since the inauguration the Republicans have somehow managed to vote 'no' as an unbroken block on the vast majority of issues. A few might talk of considering a vote in favor, but when it came down to it they almost always voted 'no'. So either every single piece of legislation proposed by Obama or Congressional Democrats was unconscionable or Republicans were following a well crafted and rehearsed plan. There is no other explanation.

The other indicator of how moderate the current Administration is overall comes from how far and fast Conservatives have bolted farther to the Right in an effort to differentiate themselves from the Administration. This has been turbo charged by the rise of the 'Tea Party' candidates who accuse the current majority of being synonymous with Hitler, Stalin, Marx and any other historically 'evil' person they can remember from High School civics class. They speak as if there is some form of tyranny being practiced, completely forgetting that the majority party was VOTED into office! They speak in reverent tones of the Constitution, yet conveniently ignore sections they don't like whenever it suits them. They ignore the annoying fact that these individuals were all elected and instead mutter about "second amendment remedies" if they don't get what they want. There has been no tyranny unless it's the tyranny of Democracy.

That's the bottom line for me. I see Conservatives, particularly as the mid-term elections approach, give every sign of actually hoping the economy remains stagnant and jobs non-existent. The worse the economy, the more they can frame it as the fault of the majority party. Never mind that Conservatives have proposed almost nothing of substance themselves. Despite the fact that they have done everything they could to prevent any significant legislation from being passed. Despite gutting every attempt at stimulating the economy to the point of even voting against tax breaks. Keeping in mind that for Conservatives, tax cuts are the holy grail of economic policy. According to them cutting taxes, which they don't mention will increase the deficit, will jump start the economy, magically create millions of jobs, protect us from terrorists and cure most forms of cancer. Despite the fact that there is little data to suggest that tax cuts are particularly effective as stimulus. And despite the fact that George W. Bush's two rounds of tax cuts added well over a Trillion dollars to the national debt. Facts are such annoying things, aren't they?

Do I think Democrats are our saviors? No, of course not. I don't necessarily agree with everything that they have proposed or passed and there are many things I wish they had taken action on that they have not. But I'll tell you one thing, at least they are trying to do something. They are still trying to act as a functioning government. Are they pure and righteous? No, but they haven't looked out on the sea of citizens laid off and unemployed through no fault of their own and accused them of sloth and drug abuse as a number of prominent Republicans have done. Democrats have tried to implement plans to stimulate the economy using all sorts of ideas including tax cuts for small business only to watch them delayed and picked apart by the opposition. I will vote Democrat because at least they are making some attempt at doing the job they were elected to do. They aren't saints and I have no illusions about their own self interest, but at least they are on the job. They are making an effort to put out the fires rather than using them to light torches.

Fiscal Reality

The conventional wisdom is that one of the most important planks in the Republican platform is 'Fiscal Conservatism'. In other words, the idea is keeping the government's purse strings pulled tight whenever possible and limit spending for non essential items.  Sounds like a good idea, doesn't it? I would have to say that I like the sentiment. I'm sure I wouldn't agree with everyone else on what's essential, but that's its own issue. The point is that Republicans and Conservatives in general are always harping on about fiscal restraint. Conversely, we are also told that Democrats like to spend and spend freely. Ask just about anyone and they'll tell you that Democrats are the spenders and Republicans are the party of fiscal restraint. What makes it so inconvenient is that it's not true.

First let's look at history. The previous five Presidential Administrations all increased the national debt, which probably surprises no one. But you might be surprised by how much each Administration contributed to our current debt. The Republicans' mythological hero, Ronald Reagan ballooned the national debt by 189% in his eight years in office, making him by far the biggest spender. Next on the list is another Republican, George W. Bush who increased the debt by 89% in his eight years. You're probably thinking that Clinton must be next, as the only other eight year Administration, right? Well, as a matter of fact, you would be wrong. George H. W. Bush takes the number three spot with a 55% increase in his four years in the White House. Number four is Jimmy Carter having added 42% in four years. That's right, William Jefferson Clinton, after eight years only added 36% to the national debt. He even managed to run a budget surplus towards the end of his second term. So here we have five Presidential Administrations and all three Republicans outspent the two Democratic Administrations. On top of that, the Clinton White House presided over the most fiscally responsible spending despite being reviled by Republicans. I realize that this simplifies the financial details of these administrations, yet it's hard not to see a fundamental hypocrisy from the 'Fiscal Conservatives' on the right.

Today the deficit is a major issue to the country, but has become the very raison d'être for the Conservative movement. In fact, since March of this year it has been a grueling fight to get unemployment extensions passed in the Senate as Republicans thump their chests and demand that they be paid for in the budget before they can be passed. On the surface this sounds somewhat reasonable. But as far as I can tell, emergency measures like these have historically never been paid for up front. That's probably because they are needed due to an . . . emergency. Another thing to realize, despite several prominent Republicans' moralistic babbling, is that unemployment benefits in a deep recession like we have now are just about the most direct form of economic stimulus possible. You are putting desperately needed money into the hands of people who will spend just about all of it back into the economy immediately. This prevents even more foreclosures, car repossessions and loan defaults by people on the edge. You keep people in their apartments rather than pushing them onto the streets to become an even bigger issue for the nation. But the steady thrum of Republicans chanting 'deficit, deficit, deficit' drowns out these obvious facts. What is really infuriating is that during lulls in the unemployment extension arguments, the same Conservatives who decried unpaid for benefits are calling for extending Bush era tax cuts for those who are least affected by the recession. Incidentally, both rounds of tax cuts pushed through by the Bush Administration and Republicans in Congress were, wait for it . . . UN-paid for. I wish I was surprised by the hypocrisy but for good or ill I'm getting a little numb to it after the last decade. The logic, if you'll allow me to demean the term for a moment, given is that tax cuts will pay for themselves. I'm serious, that's the idea. Worse yet, some people with functioning brains actually believe it. Oh, I'm not saying that in the long term the cuts may not have some positive effects that could make back a percentage of the original cuts. But tax cuts that pay for themselves are about as viable as the mythic perpetual motion machine. It might make sense four hours into a Friday night bar crawl, but in the sober light of day it's complete drivel.

The reality is that, based on past performance, Republicans seem incapable of walking the walk once they get power. They will talk up fiscal responsibility all day long and deep into the night, but their actions continually underscore a complete lack of interest in the subject. It's a hollow, empty charade for most of them. They are on full volume now because the debt is an issue after the 8 years of wars and tax cuts under Bush and the necessity of heavy spending to try and stabilize the economy immediately after Obama took office. I won't deny that the debt is a major issue. In fact I posted a piece about the need to deal with the national debt back around the end of Bush's first term. The complicating factor is that now, in the midst of a dodgy recovery from the biggest financial disaster in 80 years, is not the time to start slashing and cutting spending. Why? Because the economy is teetering on the edge and right now the Federal government is the only entity ready and willing to pump money into the economy.  The banks have somewhat recovered but are sitting tight on their cash until the economy revives. Kind of a Catch-22 for them. Banks won't lend until the economy stabilizes but the economy is having trouble stabilizing due to a lack of credit available. You see if we cut now then the States, who are already struggling to find money just to pay school teachers, will be thrown to the sharks, not to mention most any cuts of significance would result in adding more names to the already endless seeming unemployment lists. Here's where a healthy sense of irony comes in. The best time to make strides on the national debt is when the economy is doing well. That's when States are making ends meet and have some leeway in how they manage their budgets. That's when tax revenues are high because individuals and companies are buying and spending freely. That's when foreclosure and bankruptcy rates are low. That's when the banking system is flush with cash and eager to lend. That's also when politicians are least likely to cut programs and trim fiscal fat. It's when the American public is blissfully unconcerned about the debt because everything is going so darn well.

I have never claimed, and never will, that I'm a financial expert. But the most important item on the nation's agenda at this moment is stimulating the economy to spur new job creation. That's job numero uno. And that's not going to be accomplished by renewing tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans or by the Republicans' myopic plan of 'tax cuts fix everything'. No single thing is going to magically resurrect the economy. It will take targeted tax incentives, aggressive, focused spending, loosened credit markets and consumer confidence to get the nation back on its feet. This includes extended unemployment, in the short term, to provide some minimal support for those who are the most obvious victims of the collapse. Let me remind you that to be eligible for unemployment benefits a person had to have lost their job through no fault of their own. These people are not dead-beats as some pathetic politicians and pundits like to portray them. They were laid off because the economy tanked and business dried up, not because they quit or were fired. We can't ignore the ballooning debt, but we can't let it paralyze us from doing what's needed to restart the economy either. Unfortunately no single thing will get the national debt under control. Dealing with debt is like losing weight. It can't be done overnight and it's going to require long term changes and willpower.  Where it gets tough is when the recovery is complete, the storm clouds part and the sun returns. That's when we need that fervor to attack the problem because it's always more difficult to focus on cuts and and spending reductions when the cash is flowing. America must be ready and willing to demand action on the debt when we have the resources to do so and not fall back into spending it as fast as we get it. As a nation we are so fond of declaring wars on things, so why not a War on Debt? Not only would that be a winnable war, but one with concrete benefits for Americas future. When we've climbed out of this recession, let's focus on reducing government spending through cuts and changing the way we do things. For one thing, let's reduce our military commitments overseas. I'm not just talking about Iraq and Afghanistan, though to be sure both of these wars are costing us dearly. We don't need 50,000 troops in Germany anymore. We don't need tens of thousands in Japan or most of the other countries where we continue to maintain huge active duty forces. Most of these Cold War era military commitments are no longer needed. I'm not saying we should pull out everyone from everywhere, but there is no reason for the manpower commitments we currently maintain. America is capable of dealing with the financial crisis and then paying down the debt. What we have, up to this moment, been sorely lacking is the will to do so.

Stepping into the Glare

Everyone has their view on November's mid-term elections. Some, particularly those on the Right, are predicting major gains by the Republicans. History does show that the next election following a party change in the White House almost always brings losses for the party in power. Some of the more fanciful among them even crow that the results will sweep the Democrats out of the majority in both houses. This is highly unlikely as it would require a huge change in representation to bring those sorts of results. My take on the coming elections is that it is likely to be messy, but I doubt it will herald a significant swing in Congress one way or the other. Contrary to the so called conventional wisdom I don't think you will see any widespread ousting of incumbents. It will happen here and there, but probably not on any grand scale. While there is some incumbent distrust, particularly from the Right, it has yet to really show up as a significant issue in the primaries so far. Only a couple incumbents have been pushed out of the race so far. But the Tea Party movement has managed to make some inroads in several races with primary wins, particularly in Kentucky with Rand Paul and in Nevada with Sharon Angle. The problem is that once these candidates step out of their political comfort zone in their party's primaries and into the general election, their far Right and in some cases 'wing-nut Right' views become problematic.

Kentucky's Rand Paul, son of former Presidential hopeful and Republican Congressman Ron Paul, rode the Tea Party wave to beat the establishment choice who was backed by Senator McConnell and other mainstream Republicans. Almost immediately though he found himself in the center of a controversy as soon as he stepped out of the primary and onto the stage of the general election. In interviews with NPR and later Rachel Maddow his solidly Libertarian philosophy of a very limited Federal government was lit up in neon when the subject of the 1964 Civil Rights act came up. While affirming his general support he couldn't stop himself from making it clear that he did have an issue with the part of the law that would require private businesses who served the public to stop discriminating based on race or ethnic criteria. Put simply, he seems to feel that when it comes to a private business, the Federal government should not step in to force compliance of non-discrimination. It should be left essentially to market forces to decide the issue. In other words, if a restaurant discriminates in who it will serve, then the free market will punish them over time and eventually force them to make changes. It fits into the general Libertarian view of a small, generally hands off central government.  Some, of course, began to accuse him of racism, which he denied, saying he was against discrimination and wouldn't patronize a club or business that did and I believe him. I don't think, strictly speaking, that he is a racist, but this does point to a social stand that I think is very much a minority viewpoint. Especially once you step outside the Conservative side of the political landscape.

In Nevada, Sharon Angle won in a crowded field of challengers all vying for a chance to face Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in November. The primary included Sue Lowden who became infamous for her suggestion that healthcare costs could be reduced if we returned to the golden age of barter; for example, paying your doctor with a chicken or offering to paint his house. I find myself concerned about the house painting idea as it may well clash with your need for medical attention. But Sharon Angle won out and has now been thrust into the general election which requires more exposure to the glare of non-Conservative media. Suddenly her remarks from previous months and years are finding their way into the public consciousness and some people, me included, are thinking she may have some significant baggage in tow. First are various statements she has made over the last 6 months that have all been variations on the same theme. In January during a radio interview she stated: "If this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies . . ." Now I know what this statement, and the others using almost identical language, sounds like to me but I'd be interested to hear her clarification, except now that she is out of the Republican primary she is determined to side-step questions about this that are understandably coming from the local and mainstream media. In one confrontation with a local reporter who asked her about the quote, instead of answering this question and others in the same vein, she kept telling the reporter to "go ask Harry Reid.”  It was a classic case of a politician who was trying very hard to only deal with the Conservative media and got surprised by someone who actually wanted her to defend her positions. Among her other stated concerns are an interest in getting rid of the Environmental Protection Agency, transitioning Social Security into a private system and concerns about fluoridation of drinking water. This last hearkens back to the heyday of Communist conspiracy theories in the 1950s. Dr. Strangelove aficionados will undoubtedly crack a smile or maybe even have a good chuckle at the reference.

Both of these candidates have the exact same problem. Their campaigns have focused heavily on the Conservative base so they could win Republican primaries, but in so doing they have had to ride on policy ideas and beliefs that appealed to the core Conservative constituencies. Unfortunately for them, the core of the Conservative movement has, over the last couple years, side stepped several yards to the right of what it was previously. This means the candidates are in a difficult position in a general state election where they will require the support of moderate and independent voters to win. However the very strengths that won them the party primaries are now being used against them by their Democratic opponents. This is what I think we are going to see, writ large, in the run-up to the mid-term elections: Conservative candidates riding high as they come out of primary victories, but then being bloodied badly as they come into contact with the rest of the voting populace. Both of these candidates are doing their best to avoid this by sheltering under the cover of Conservative media outlets. Doing everything they can to limit exposure to 'unfriendly' journalists, in other words any reporter who won't smile and agree with everything they say. It will be interesting to see how this will work. It didn't help Sarah Palin in her 2008 Vice Presidential run. Once she found herself unable to avoid talking to more main stream media outlets the number of quotes and policy positions that made moderates go, "Huh?!" rose sharply and the McCain/Palin campaign staff was required to waste a lot of time and energy to attempt damage control. Ultimately these encounters with actual journalists cost the McCain-Palin campaign more votes than Palin's young, brash, outsider status brought in. While she has since found a strange sort of cult celebrity, she is not taken seriously by anyone outside the far Right. And therein lies the crux of the problem.  In a time when the Republican Right wing is pulling the whole party farther from the Middle and almost demonizing Moderate views, many Republican candidates are entering the general elections with massive gaps between themselves and their Democratic opponents. The danger for them is that Independents and Moderates might actually be more inclined to vote for a conservative Democrat over a far Right Republican whose ideas seem out of touch with the general public. I think a number of these new Conservative stars are going to stumble badly as moderates and independents discover more and more about them.

Repeal of Intelligence

There are those for and those against the recently passed healthcare reform bill (HCR). That would be true of any legislation of course, but what makes this time so . . . interesting is that the side that lost is in the midst of a PR campaign that is virtually pointless in real terms. Well two prongs of the same campaign. First is the battle cry, which began before the final House vote when it was clear that HCR would pass, to "Repeal and Replace" the bill. Second, which started shortly after the final vote, that the law was unconstitutional and State Attorneys General would sue the Federal Government to overturn it.

As to the first prong of the Republican response to HCR passage, you have got to be kidding me. It doesn't take a constitutional scholar, in fact most eighth graders are up to the task, to realize that it takes two thirds majorities in BOTH houses of Congress to override the inevitable Presidential veto. Keeping in mind that Republicans don't even have close to a simple majority, much less two thirds. Even if you accept the assumption that Republicans may gain seats in the mid term elections, it would take a truly historic turnover to give them veto proof majorities. How historic? They would need a net gain of 26 seats in the 100 member Senate and 112 seats in the House. If the vote was held today, that would still be almost impossible. By the time November rolls around and HCR is starting to take affect kids will no longer be subject to insurance rejection from "pre-existing conditions", Medicare recipients will have gotten drug benefit refund checks and not one person will have been sentenced to die by a "Death Panel". They may gain some seats, but I don't think they're likely to gain the majority in either House much less the landslides needed to "Repeal & Replace".

Then we have the litigation angle. I think we are now up to 13 states who are filing lawsuits or have filed them against the Federal government. Again I'm no law expert, but seems telling that only 13 Republican Attorneys General are going in on this. Even some lawyers who say they don't support the bill are admitting that there really isn't a legal case for scrapping the law. In fact, when the University of Washington tried to put together a debate between legal experts on the legality of HCR, they couldn't find anyone to champion the unconstitutionality of the bill. And in another wild dust-up in Georgia, we have a State legislature and Governor talking about impeaching the GA Attorney General for not joining the madness. Attorney General Thurbert Baker, after investigating the legality of such a suit at the Governor's request, wrote the Governor to say:

"Based upon my understanding of the current Act, I am unaware of any constitutional infirmities and do not think it would be prudent, legally or fiscally, to pursue such litigation. I must therefore respectfully decline your request." He continued, "In short, this litigation is likely to fail and will consume significant amounts of taxpayers' hard-earned money in the process." (The full letter is available here) 

Speaking of tax payer's money, the Attorney General of Virginia, Kenneth Cuccinelli, actually put out a statement in response to cost concerns for his litigation against the HCR bill:

"The court filing fee for the case of Commonwealth v. Kathleen Sebelius in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia was $350.  There has been no additional cost above this amount, as the litigation is being handled entirely by the attorney general’s staff." (Full press release here)

The $350 is simply the charge for filing the paperwork with the court. Really, that's it? So I take it that the entire AG staff has agreed to do all work on this case on their own time and using none of the AG office's resources? Is that what he's claiming? Because if not, then, forgive my directness but, he's lying. Every moment one of the AG staff spends on this useless piece of litigation is time they are being paid by the VA taxpayers and time they are not working on other business. Every piece of paper used or Kilobyte of data sent while online is using AG resources that are paid for by the VA taxpayers. That adds up to way more that $350, even just for the initial filing.

Now are these guys really too stupid to know that all this is pointless? Of course not. They are well aware that they have a snowball's chance in hell of repealing this law as long as Obama sits in the Oval Office. They are also well aware that litigation is almost certainly a waste of time as well. So why are they wasting time and money on it? Actually I just answered my own question, at least in part. Money. There is a nice bit of anger still frothing out there and every riled up citizen is a potential source of campaign cash. The longer they can keep that outrage humming along, the more cash they can raise. Guess this is their idea of 'fiscal conservatism'. Spend thousands and thousands of dollars of our money so the GOP can make theirs. Guess they have to refill the RNC coffers emptied for 'Office Supplies' from Congressional Liquors and 'Entertainment Expenses' at the Voyeur erotic nightclub in CA. Not to mention the Hawaii based convention. Now that's what I call fiscally responsible!

I think what most amazes me about all of this is that the conservative base doesn't seem to care. They are lied to and they are unfazed. They are callously used to  perpetuate misinformation and disrupt any rational discussion of the issues at hand and they keep smiling and waving signs. Conservative corporations and political action committees hijack their demonstrations and they don't mind. The same politicians who voted consistently to enact huge unpaid for tax cuts during the Bush years are now billing themselves as the last bastions of fiscal restraint, yet their supporters don't care. I can fully understand policy concerns and differences. I can understand frustration at the current Administration. What I can't fathom is how so many are willfully blind to the utter lack of respect they receive from the conservative luminaries they support. The rational conservative base should demand more than what they are getting from people like John Boehner and Michelle Bachman who only exist to perpetuate themselves and their friends, whatever the cost to the nation.

Reaping What Was Sown

Well, it's done. The health reform bill is passed and signed. Even the 'sidecar' bill of tweaks to the Senate bill have been passed, following a brief Congressional two-step. So this long healthcare battle is over, right? Yes and no. The problem, you see, is that you can't spend the better part of a year telling people that America faces "Armageddon" from this "government takeover of healthcare" perpetrated by "Commu-Fasci-Socialists" that want to institute "Death Panels" to make grandma "shovel ready" and then walk away when the vote goes against you. Once you get all that fervor stirred up, it's difficult to shrug and move onto another topic.

The citizenry that the Republicans systematically turned rabid is still frothing and unsated. They now believe that it really was the end of our republic when the bill passed. They completely lost the subtext of the whole debate, which was that the GOP was intent on fighting, by any means necessary, every single initiative the Obama Administration proposed. This included misrepresentations and outright lies about the substance of the reform bills. They don't realize that it was mostly political theater or that the bill actually resembles previous Republican proposals for health reform. So why is this a problem? Well it started with spitting and assorted slurs directed at Democratic members of Congress as House members arrived for the final vote on health reform and continued with even GOP members of Congress yelling out comments in the House chamber, as if it was a middle school assembly.  Then came broken glass at Democratic offices around the country, quickly followed by an Alabama blogger who claimed some measure of credit for a brick thrown through the Democratic Committee's office in Rochester, NY. The brick had a note attached to it that quoted Barry Goldwater's famous statement: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." It's one of those statements that seems patriotic until you think on it, which I'm sure these fringe dwellers did not. I firmly believe that extremism of any kind is bad. Extremism is synonymous with zealotry and fanaticism and are the same words we use for Al-Qaida and other groups like them. Not the comparison I think I'd want to make.

But it's escalated from there. Congressional Democrats, in particular, are getting calls threatening violence and outright death threats. I heard a string of truly nasty messages left at the home of Representative Bart Stupak, appearing to focus on abortion. They called him 'baby killer' and the like, which is truly ironic considering that what finally got him on board with the House vote was an agreement by the President to put out an executive order that stated there would be no Federal funding for abortion. To clarify, there never was language in either the final House or Senate bills that would have allowed Federal funding for abortion, so it was always a manufactured issue. Yet here we have people calling Stupak and railing at him, in pretty graphic and violent terms, about an issue that was never a concern anyway. It illustrates quite well that the people behind these sorts of calls were getting all their info on the reform bill from Glenn Beck and GOP talking points. In another incident, a conservative blogger posted what he thought was a Democratic House member's home address online. Bad form in and of itself. But it turned out to be the address for the Congressman's brother and the family found that someone had cut the gas lines outside their house. Now I know that there are a lot of irrational people around and they will always be around. But having said that, there are individuals and groups who need to take some responsibility for the current state of things. And no, I'm not talking about the Democrats who voted for the bill.

But before you think I’ve gone irrationally partisan, I ask you to think back to the GOP rhetoric over the last year objectively. It was consistently laced with phrases like “government takeover” and “Death Panels”.  They continually used emotionally evocative terms like “socialist”, “communist” and "gulag", among many others. These were just the Republican members of Congress, mind you. Once you step outside the Capital building it went downhill even faster. Signs comparing health reform to Auschwitz and Nazi social policies. We saw images of the President of the United States portrayed as the sociopathic Joker from the last Batman movie and as Hitler. By the time the final vote arrived we had protesters with signs threatening armed violence if they didn’t get their way. Add that to the slurs, spitting and threats and you have a nasty situation. Now you can claim that the protesters were responsible for their own overzealous behavior, but that is only partly true. Republican politicians and pundits share responsibility because they not only encouraged this misguided and arguably irrational behavior but actually joined in throughout the year with many of these protests. Put simply, they took the reasonable concern of a minority segment of the American people and whipped them into a Mob, convinced that the nation’s very soul was at stake. The GOP and the various conservative pundits created this Mob to use against the President and the Democratic majority. At every turn the Becks and the Limbaughs of the conservative movement made wild, inflammatory and, more often than not, fabricated statements to keep the fury running as hot as possible. Even Congressional leaders like House Minority Leader Boehner and Senate Minority Leader McConnell continued the misinformation and emotional rhetoric. The problem comes now that the reform bill is passed and signed into law. Now what? At some point, after milking the movement of as many contributions as possible under the ridiculous banner of "Repeal & Replace", the GOP will want to move on to the next issue. But the Mob will still be there. Still looking for blood. They won't understand that it was all a big political game to their conservative representatives. And they won't understand when those same politicians stop talking about the "evil that was done to the Constitution".

It's all well and good to use public outrage to support your policies, but when you surrender all principle and common sense you create not a group of concerned citizens, but a mob of fanatics. A mob who are, in many cases, protesting about issues that don't even exist. Once you get to that level, the most extreme within that group will be the ones running it and guiding it. That's where you get scary people who cut people's gas lines or call their home to leave obscenity laced diatribes describing the horrible ways they wish this person will suffer and die. That's were you get militia-like groups of fringe dwellers who see nothing wrong with bringing weapons to political gatherings and making veiled threats of overthrowing the government. Even now, House Minority Leader Boehner and his fellow Republicans have only managed to make weak statements saying that violence is not good. No condemnations or calls for calm. In fact, he only mentioned that violence and threats are not appropriate after he made allowances for how upset everyone was about the bill's passage. Really? That's the best he could do? That's about as much of a condemnation as when a man flew his plane into the IRS building in TX, killing one and injuring many, and Representative Steve King babbled about how the IRS is a problem and he could understand how the guy might have been frustrated. Yeah, let's feel sympathy for the disturbed individual who thought flying his plane into an office building and killing someone was a good idea. What do you think Boehner and others will say if one of these individuals injures or kills someone out of, what he considers, justifiable anger? I suspect they'll set land speed records distancing themselves from it, even though they helped set the stage for it. When you are in a position of power and trust, there is a measure of responsibility that goes along with it. These people don't seem to realize that. Look, if you go camping and build a fire, but don't put it out properly and a few thousand acres of forest goes up in flames, you are held responsible. Words may seem benign, but they can be just as dangerous as a spark in a pile of leaves.

The Tough Questions

As you may have noticed from previous posts, I've been very frustrated politically over the last year. The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that the media is letting us down. Not that it doesn't give ample air time to various viewpoints, as it surely does. But it seems to me that with only a few exceptions, much of the time pundits and political figures spend in the media spotlight is merely  to spout thinly veiled propaganda. I don't include formal speeches and news conferences, as those are clearly the showplaces of the most naked of propaganda. I'm speaking of talk shows and interviews.

I've watched a good deal of TV news and opinion shows, or snippets thereof and it infuriates me to watch a guest spout off a long string of what they claim are indisputable facts and yet the interviewer will simply nod or offer up an opportunity for the guest to elaborate without ever challenging any of their claims. I've watched Senators confidently assert 'facts' that are demonstrably false. I don't mean that I disagree with their interpretation of policy. I mean straight up, no gray area, easily refuted lies. And this happens all the time. This isn't journalism, it's Public Relations. For example, I've watched Republican Senators and Representatives smile confidently and dismiss the various health reform bills as an unacceptable 'Government takeover of healthcare" and I keep waiting for the host to lean in and politely interrupt. I want to hear them ask exactly what part of the bill constitutes a takeover of healthcare? But they never do! This is where the media can make a difference. It's where they can help cut through the misinformation and the far too numerous lies. But far too often the moderators are little more than game show hosts.  So guests are allowed to come on and make blatantly misleading statements or lies with the tacit approval of the host. What's the point of this? It's just a media provided lectern from which guests can proclaim the sky is red to millions of people without contradiction. I don't expect the hosts to fact check everything on the fly, but when these whoppers come rolling out I'd like to see something!

Also, we've entered into an era where many media outlets have turned to an echo chamber style of journalism. You'll have a host who will interview almost exclusively politicians and pundits of the same political bent as they are. While you will occasionally get some decent analysis out of these, you rarely get anything particularly insightful. The guests are generally there just to provide backing for the host's views. What would make these much more interesting would be to see more liberals on Fox and more conservatives on MSNBC, for example. Of course, I have no idea if the main reason for much of this is due to guests refusing to come on a show that might actually press them on issues. This is certainly a likely reason, as I've heard Rachel Maddow note on several occasions that they have tried to get this person or that to come on the show but they've never accepted. In other words, they refused so they wouldn't have to answer a bunch of inconvenient questions.

Now you can say that some of this comes from the guest's demands for a friendly platform, therefore what can be done? Well, if the majority of news and opinion shows stopped providing unhindered propaganda time for guests, that would be a start. If these people stopped having this plethora of outlets vying to give out free air time, they would have to deal with a more adversarial format if they wanted to get their views broadcast. I bet if this was the norm rather than the exception, there would be a bit more truth mixed in with the self serving blather. This could only be a good thing.

Call It What You Want, But Kill It

Old school Senators might call it Rule 22. More recently it's been referred to as the the need for a 'Supermajority'. However it's more common name is the Filibuster. Put simply, the Filibuster is a Senate procedural rule whereby the minority can use various procedures to draw out, delay and obstruct a piece of legislation, ideally to the point of stopping it.  There is a good article on it on Wikipedia, it's a bit dry, but interesting.

Initially this rule required the opposition to basically takeover the floor of the Senate with speeches and whatnot in a constant stream of noise, thus preventing any other legislation from being discussed, functionally shutting down the Senate until either they ran out of steam or the other side caved. Then in the 1960s a Two Track system was devised that, with unanimous consent or agreement between the Majority and Minority leaders, a Filibustered bill could be set aside to deal with other pressing matters, so the Senate would not be completely stopped, though that particular bill would be in stasis. This didn't prevent the 1964 Civil Rights Act from being Filibustered for 75 hours, including a 14 hr 13 min address by Senator Robert Byrd. At least this type of process requires everyone to stay on the job and it became an endurance test to see if the minority could hold the floor 24/7. But it's been simplified recently to allow the minority leader to simply tell the majority leader that they intend to Filibuster and all discussion stops until or unless the majority can find 60 votes to override it. A questionable change, to be sure.

Now I can see how this option is a useful tool for the minority when they feel a specific piece of legislation is a really bad idea and therefore they have to take extraordinary steps in an attempt to stop it or at least delay as long as possible to try and change a few key votes. By and large this is how the Filibuster was used for much of its history. Until recently anyway. Use of the Filibuster began to rise throughout the 20th century, but it wasn't till the 1990's that it began to edge into the sphere of abuse. Yet it didn't reach the current level of pathetic stupidity till the Republicans began losing control of Congress in 2006. The current session of Congress has already more than doubled the use of this Senate rule . . . and this session is not over yet!

What it all boils down to is that the Republican party was scared silly after the 2008 elections. They were terrified that Obama and the Democrats, who were voted into power by a comfortable margin, might actually accomplish something and continue to gain popularity. So they took a rule designed for special use and began applying it in virtually every single debate. Even going to the extreme of using it to stop legislation from simply coming to the floor for discussion! It's hard for me to imagine many instances for legitimately obstructing the mere discussion of a proposal. Yet this is where we find ourselves today. A forty one vote minority in the Senate , forty until last month, has decided that it is politically vital that no Obama supported proposals pass. Period. Call me a radical, but that is not a good enough reason to bring the Senate, and by extension Congress as a whole, to a complete halt. It is not an exaggeration to say that this has never happened in the history of the Senate. Individual bills here and there, yes. Throwing roadblocks up for just about every major bill for over a year and still counting? Never.

If you were reading carefully you will have noted the use of the word 'Rule'. That's because the Filibuster is not a Constitutional Senatorial structure, but rather a rule created by the Senate itself. Therefore it can be changed by the Senate and indeed has been modified a number of times throughout its history. Now is another one of those times. The Filibuster was never meant to allow the minority to bring Congress to a halt each time a bill was introduced. It was a special use option, not a standard procedure. The only thing that makes it even possible now is the absolute, lock-step voting block that is the GOP. The Senate Republicans have managed to lock up every single GOP vote, for almost every single piece of legislation. And they vote 'No' with that block on anything that President Obama supports. It is unheard of for a single party to hold together like this on vote after vote and issue after issue. It is stupid and it is illogical. Are we to believe that every single piece of legislation that Obama supports is bad? Really? Even under Bush, some Dems voted for Republican bills and vice versa. It is not believable that ALL Republican Senators agree on every single issue. It is obviously political gamesmanship of the most dishonorable sort. This has become more obvious as Senator after Senator is being caught vocally shouting down ideas that they, themselves supported only a short time before. One of my favorites is the so called 'PayGo' legislation. It declares that Congress cannot enact legislation without also including a way to pay for it. It's an idea that will shock many. Not because of the bill itself, but from the realization that this isn't standard procedure! Guess that would explain the ballooning deficit since this practice was stopped during G.W. Bush's tenure. In fact, this was a major part of what gave us budget surpluses during the tail end of the Clinton administration. PayGo is the kind of idea that should send a sensual thrill through anyone who calls themselves a Fiscal Conservative. In fact, many Republicans have spoken out in support the idea in the recent past. Or they did before Obama lent it his support. Shortly thereafter, GOP support vanished like a lobbyist at a press conference.

It can only be assumed that the GOP feels the success of their party in the 2010 mid-term elections is far more important than minor things like uninsured Americans or debt reduction. Oh, they talk about these things, incessantly, But they just don't do anything about them. If they did, they would have to engage the Dems and the Administration in actual . . . (gulp) dialog. Then they would be open to attack from the ignorantly conservatives out there who have convinced themselves that if Obama likes it, then it must be (gasp!) Socialism!!! The GOP made this particular bed with meticulously crafted hospital corners and now they can't get out of bed at all. If they do their jobs and work with the Administration, they anger their base, hence the perpetual Senate Fillibuster. So we are left with a significant, though still minority portion, of our legislature that has taken to misusing the tools at its disposal for transparently political reasons. Much like a child using a jackhammer to hang a picture. And like that child, it's past time to take that tool away from them before they cause any more damage. They've abused it beyond any rational point, so it's time to revoke it and move on. Someone has to govern in a time of war and economic hardship and if the GOP is unwilling to do so, then Obama and the Democrats will have to do it without them. To do that, the Filibuster MUST DIE.

Write your Senators and let them know how you feel. Tell the Republicans that it's time to do the job they were hired for and tell the Democrats to stop wasting time and remove the one tool Republicans have continually used to jam the machinery of government.

The Year of Us & Them

It's been a long year politically, no matter what side of the aisle you prefer. It seems like every single issue became a sharply divided fight. That in itself may not have been exceptional in our nation's history, but it was more than just partisan wrangling. I have to wonder how long it's been since Congress has exhibited gridlock of this level. I've certainly seen times when there were nasty political fights, but I don't recall another time where things had devolved to this level of stupid.

I know it seems that I am looking at things through Democrat glasses. I'll admit there is a bias that I am fully aware of, but this is not simply a case of a liberal viewpoint. What makes this last year different is the way the Republicans have chosen to approach the Obama Presidency. Not by pushing their own bills, but simply to sit in the stands and vote 'No' on pretty much every vote. No engagement or discussion. They just vote 'No' on any legislation proposed by Democrats and especially anything supported by the President. Then they run outside and make speeches for the cameras and blogs, decrying the partisanship of the process and how Democrats are ignoring the will of the people. It would be a losing strategy if not for how easily the American public can be baited and tricked into impatience and outrage. As the old saying goes, you get the government you deserve in a democracy. This is how the Bush Administration managed two terms. They masterfully wielded the 'fear' card to diffuse any public backlash that might arise from the careful trimming of civil liberties and massive military expenditures.

I have to give the Republicans credit for their ability to hold together in a solid phalanx on any issue. It's this ability that has always scared the hell out of me about the party. The Democrats have always been more fractious and prone to inner discord. I'd say it's more 'free thinking'. But the Republicans have this 'Children of the Corn' ability to band together as if they are all of a single political mind. I often wonder how they manage to force their more moderate members to follow along. Perhaps simply by threatening their re-election campaigns? Maybe they're threatening their children? I don't know, but whatever it is, it's certainly effective. The synchronized voting wouldn't be so worrying if confined to the occasional issue, as in the past. But when used across the entire Congressional term, that's when things have gone over the edge. What that tells me is that the choreographed voting has nothing to do with individual beliefs or considerations and everything to do with what they are told to do. This should be unacceptable from either party. It invalidates the whole idea of campaigning for office. Since all Republicans are functionally identical, why should anyone care what their name is or what they supposedly stand for? All we would need to know is if they can read, write and follow instructions. No active intellect required. Certainly simplifies voting.

Government is more than the competition between a couple of static political platforms! I remember issues in the past that tended to polarize Congress, yet even then you would see the odd Dem or Republican cross the aisle to vote their conscience.  But this last Congress has become nothing more than a schoolyard at recess. One side is so defensive about being the smaller group and so worried that the other side might do something that is popular that they're sulking in the corner and refusing to let anyone play. I have never been so disgusted with my government as I am now. And it's not because the Republicans won't rubber-stamp Obama's policies the way they did for Bush. It's because they won't even engage in the discussion. They spend more energy talking to the camera, Tweeting and posting inane comments on Facebook than they do in any kind of conversation with Democrats. They have taken the filibuster to heights undreamed of in the previous history of our nation. After holding fairly steady for decades, the number of attempts to block even the introduction of legislation has DOUBLED in the current session of Congress, and this session is far from over yet. In other words, the minority party has fought every single action by the majority party from day one. This is far beyond policy disagreements. This can only be a concerted effort to stop anything the President proposes. Not because it's questionable policy, but as overall political gamesmanship to make Obama and the Dems look ineffectual. Admittedly the Democrats are scarily good at this on their own. Put simply, Republicans have shown quite clearly that the needs of the Nation take a back seat to the needs of the party. The Republicans are too busy trying to discredit the majority party to notice that the building is on fire. This cannot continue.

The icing on this cyanide laced cake is that so many Americans don't seem to see or even care. We have historically looked to the government, right or wrong, for leadership in tough times. When things are at their worst we tend to follow anyone who speaks with authority. So without thinking things through, Americans have essentially ceded control to the loudest cry. Currently that is the Republican party. Even though it's a whiny, self serving screed. Yet the American public follows along the way they are told; they get angry at what they are told they should be angry about. Over and over they are manipulated with sound bites and corporate sponsored misinformation campaigns. Verifiable lies are allowed to not just sit unchallenged but are made the centerpiece of supposed legitimate arguments. Death Panels? Lie. Government takeover of healthcare? Lie. No terrorist attacks under Bush? Lie. None under Bush after 9/11? Lie. Obama as a Socialist fanatic? Lie. The Democrats ignoring Republicans? Lie! The list is seemingly endless. We Americans are currently getting the government we deserve. Oh yes, indeedy. A dysfunctional mess that accomplishes little other than filling the airwaves with noise. We voted in Obama by a solid majority, because we knew things had to change, only to then become furious that the new Administration is actually changing things! Oddly enough, you can't have change without change. And even if a bad decision is made, it's not the end of the country, as the 'Tea Bag' fringe dwellers like to claim. America is not a Faberge egg. We won't shatter if jostled. We elected President Obama and the Democratic majority to alter the course of the previous 8 years and deal with an economic crisis. We MUST let them try to do that. Not without some counterbalance, certainly. But we can't expect them to accomplish anything with half the government sitting in the dark, fingers in their ears yelling, "Lalalalalalalala, I can't hear you!"

If you really care what happens to America and our world policies, pay attention. Don't assume everything your favorite pundit says is the absolute, unadulterated truth. Think about it yourself and see if it makes sense. I like Keith Olbermann, but I am well aware that he does occasionally drift across the line, though I think it's from frustration rather than malice. What scares me is that listeners of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck don't seem to have the same realization. Beck practically lives in the fringe and Limbaugh has become so enamored of his own voice and the adulation of his fans that he doesn't appear to filter himself anymore. He actually says everything that crosses the transom of his mind without ever thinking it through. His comments after the Haitian earthquake are an excellent example of this. If an issue is of interest read different views, and really think about what they are saying and if it actually makes sense or is just self serving noise. It is probably best to try and avoid the noisemakers on the fringe though. They exist primarily as self promotion machines and are rarely more substantive than a WWF Wrestling event.

Most importantly, write your Senators and Congressional representatives. Email, Postal and phone calls. Democrats AND Republicans. Every one who represents you. Tell them what you think. Tell them what you want. Tell them what you don't like. Be reasoned and direct in what you think, but avoid emotional rants that might get you dropped into the wing-nut category. I know it's easy to just sit back and not get involved, but that is what many in Congress want. As long as you say nothing, they can presume to decide on your behalf in any way they see fit. Demand that they do their jobs and work with all the other children in DC to do what America needs and not what is politically advantageous for them or their sponsors. Because they will keep doing what's in their best interests until they feel it's in their best interests to change!

Below are links to find your Senators and Representatives. Everyone has two Senators and a Representative who directly represents them. Write to ALL of them. Write often on any issue you care about. They are supposed to be representing you, not their own interests or those of their largest donors. Make your voice heard!!

Contact the Congress
Electronic Frontier Foundation: Contact Congress Page