American Politics

That is the new meme emerging following the two gubernatorial losses last night for Democrats. I seemed to have missed it where Obama was on the ballot, but that’s what all the talking heads want us to think.

Let’s take a look at Creigh Deeds and the Virginia race. Actually have a look at Think Progress and you will notice how Deeds made a sharp move to the right towards the end of the race. Moves like that won’t bring in any last minute voters, but it will certainly tell the more progressive crowd to just stay home, including those Obama voters.

Then we have a new message being pushed by the right saying that the Democrats should move “more towards the center'”. That’s an interesting angle considering the conservatives want the Republicans to move more towards the right. Sadly we can expect the Democratic leadership to heed this warning and do just that. They are already talking about moving health care reform until next year, and we know what that means. It will then be “well we got to worry about the midterms so let’s go ahead and put it off until 2011”.

The problem is that Democrats are gullible, and not just the elected ones but even the membership at large, including many in the progressive blogosphere. I have pointed out in the past how many Democrats seemed to drink the Kool-Aid that Obama is some uber-liberal, comparable to Ghandi light. Afghanistan is a perfect example of this. The left is acting like Obama has broken some promise by not pulling the troops out of Afghanistan, when he actually is doing what he campaigned on. Instead of listening to the candidate, the left chose to listen to the right wing talking points. This practice is very dangerous for any progressive movement.

The Democrats need to learn how to control the message. Until they can do that they will exist as puppets to the right. Falling for the new meme that the left must move towards the “center” is not a way of doing this.

I have used this quote before, but it bares repeating:

The validity of this quote by our first President came to mind while reading the reactions from the news that Dede Scozzafava, the Republican candidate for NY-23, has suspended her campaign. The most interesting and pertinent reaction came from Newt Gingrich:

“This makes life more complicated from the standpoint of this: If we get into a cycle where every time one side loses, they run a third-party candidate, we’ll make Pelosi speaker for life and guarantee Obama’s re-election,” said Mr. Gingrich, who had endorsed Ms. Scozzafava.

“I felt very deeply that when you have all 11 county chairman voting for someone, that it wasn’t appropriate for me to come in and render my judgment,” he said. “I think we are going to get into a very difficult environment around the country if suddenly conservative leaders decide they are going to anoint people without regard to local primaries and local choices.”

What Gingrich is describing there is something becoming far to common in politics today. Instead of letting the people who would be represented by that candidate make the decision, you now got people exerting pressure from all over the country – even people who never been to a district like NY-23.

This is a major problem for the right. The far right is pushing out the moderates, effectively shrinking the size of their tent. Instead of embracing the ideals of the people, they are trying to force the people to embrace the ideals of the few. This is no recipe for success if the GOP wants to regain control.

As long as we are stuck with having parties we need more than one to maintain checks and balances within the halls of Congress. To insure that we need to break away from a two-party system. Perhaps there is a silver lining to what is happening in NY-23. Maybe we will see the start of a split that will give us a Conservative Party and a Republican Party, then that momentum could move to the left and give us a Democratic Party and a Liberal Party. While the Conservative and Liberals would not likely come up with anything together, we could quiet possibly see legislation supported by Republicans and Liberals or Democrats and Conservatives.

Having a system like this would be a big win for America. The two party monopoly we have in politics today would cease to exist and the need to try and garner support from the extreme ends of the ideological spectrum would be no more. We would have a sliding scale instead of teeter-totter when it comes to legislation. It would also keep pressure on each party to keep with their base ideals. Having equally powerful parties on each side of the more common Republican and Democratic parties would force those members to stay more within the confines of their party.

For this too work though it would have to be a consensus amongst both our current parties. If just one party splits up then their chances of ever regaining control would become extinct. Both parties would have to decide to split at the same time. Sadly that is something we won’t see without a national initiative to start it. Big donors withholding money and the grassroots joining forces to push the issue. That would choke off the current two parties and force them to listen to ‘we the people’.

Well, Specter, take [Sen. John] McCain with you. And his daughter [Meghan]. Take McCain and his daughter with you if you're gonna…

Republican Leader Rush Limbaugh on news of Specter switching parties. That’s a pretty bad statement, but even worse is his rationale for it:

…..It's ultimately good. You're weeding out people who aren't really Republicans

Only 21% of the people in this country identify themselves as Republican now. How low does boss Limbaugh want to go? 14%? 7%?

I also wonder how long it will take before the Democrats stop gloating and realize that this is actually bad for our country and take action to fix this problem? It might sound odd that Democrats would be worried about the demise of their opponent in our political fabric, but having two strong parties is necessary to ensure our system of checks and balances. So if it gets to the point that Democrats have a 65 or 70 seat majority in the Senate, will Democrats take action to force a restructuring of the Republican Party, or leveling the playing field to help bring in other parties like the Libertarian movement? Our country does depend on it.

Today's Washington Post has an article by right wing hit man John Solomon. Today Solomon goes after John Edwards and his infamous $400 haircut. They are coining it as "the stylist speaks out", even though I got a feeling Solomon worked hard to get him to "speak out".

Instead of quoting this piece of crap, which has absolutely nothing to do with leadership, I think it is prudent to remember our history. 231 years ago 56 brave men signed their own death warrant. That death warrant was called the Declaration of Independence, and if the Revolutionary War would have gone the other way, all these men would have been hanged for treason.

They took the ultimate risk to build a nation that was better. One above all others. Now we got this - a country that worries about how much a haircut costs. This is not some "scandal" trademarked by Edwards. Clinton also faced the same scrutiny, lead by a rash of right wing lies when he got a haircut aboard Air Force One.

So why is it the right can only find petty things to pick on?

Look at who their top voices are. Ann Coulter, who sinks to the lowest of human standards by making jokes about Edwards dead son. The same person who can joke about a presidential candidate being harassed, while claiming it a "joke" (and you are welcome Bill).

Or how about a man they want to be the next President, Newt Gingrich. This is a man who told a bunch of other neo-cons that people died in Katrina, because the people were "so uneducated and so unprepared, they literally couldn't get out of the way of a hurricane". This statement was also received by a bunch of cheers.

So let's compare Katrina and Edwards haircut. Number of people who have died from Edward's getting an expensive haircut - 0. Number of people that died from Bush wanting to look good? 1836.

While we are on the current leader of the Republican party, let's discuss some other things. This is a party that has applauded the largest assault against justice ever exhibited - Scooter Libby. This is a man who contributed to the lies that lead us into war. A man who purposely lied to investigators in order to steer off an investigation into those lies and the repercussions that lead to the outing of a CIA agent.

When Bush announced he was commuting the sentence of Scooter, he said he "respected the decision of the jury". What about the respect for the jury that Libby lied to? This is the jury that was charged with getting to the bottom of the actual crime and Libby threw sand in their face, so to reward that you give him the ultimate gift?

231 years ago, some of the bravest men this world has ever seen stared down the threat of certain death in order to let people live life more free. They were tired of forced religion and an imperial leader who did not care about the people, or justice.

On August 27, 1776, the British landed in New York. Not every American was as brave as those 56. Many ran and were moved to boats of shore, safe from cannon fire. These were the people who coward and chose the cowardly route that lead behind King George's shirt tails. If this were today, some of the people on those ships would be the likes of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Ann Coulter and all the other's on the right who continue to insult the liberty given to us by 56 brave souls.

Now don't let them fool you. They will try to convince you that they are the brave souls. They would have called people like John Hancock, Ben Franklin, Sam Adams and Thomas Jefferson cowards. When the left stands up to the assault on our liberty done by this President, we are called cowards also. If we are the cowards, then I am proud to be one, and in a country that is filled with cowards. Instead we choose to stand up for what we believe in, and not focus on such petty things as haircuts. We realize there are serious problems facing our young nation and choose to face the challenges head on.

People like John Solomon and the right wing stooges he feeds are not worthy of the gift they were given by our founding fathers. They are actually an insult to the history of this nation, and the reason our great political system has become so poisoned. Perhaps it is time for them to leave this country and head back to King George with their heads held high, saying they tried to destroy the rebels in America.

Think about it. Every time the Democrats do something that makes the netroots happy Republicans quickly bash them as being taken over by the "fringe" elements. They quickly blast Move On and DailyKos as "taking over the party". It always goes through me, like the sound of Coulter, when I hear this used. Are these pundits and politicians saying that the netroots don't deserve a political party? That is exactly how it appears every single time.

I bring this up because it is time do a little role switching. Yesterday's Washington Times published this story:

The Republican National Committee, hit by a grass-roots donors' rebellion over President Bush's immigration policy, has fired all 65 of its telephone solicitors, Ralph Z. Hallow will report Friday in The Washington Times.

Faced with an estimated 40 percent fall-off in small-donor contributions and aging phone-bank equipment that the RNC said would cost too much to update, Anne Hathaway, the committee's chief of staff, summoned the solicitations staff last week and told them they were out of work, effective immediately, the fired staffers told The Times.

The national committee yesterday confirmed the firings that took place more than a week ago, but denied that the move was motivated by declining donor response to phone solicitations.

So now we have the RNC falling to the control of people like Michelle Malkin and Glenn Reynolds. This also isn't the only case of the RNC being hit back by their own netroots. You also have Redstate declaring war against the House Republican Leadership:

The House Republican Leadership just does not get it and they will not take us seriously until we flex our muscle against them. We must fight the House GOP and we must fight today.

Today, I declare war on the Republican Leadership of the United States House of Representatives. We must scalp one member. That member's name is Ken Calvert.

So is this really fringe elements trying to take over a party? Absolutely not. This is a case of people who believe in the core fundamentals of their own political party wanting to change it for what they feel is the better. In other words - it is democracy!

What the Scarboroughs, O'Reillys and Hannitys of the world need to realize is that every citizen of this country is entitled to their opinion and beliefs. These are the same people that talk about the old stale "inside the beltway" mentality, yet they also have an outdated "traditional media" mentality.

The internet is great because it gives anyone a voice. Anyone can blog and it doesn't cost a dime if they so choose. Of course it isn't the blogger who makes the voices heard; it's the people who visit that blog. The commenters and readers who increase that blogs popularity gives them a much larger soapbox to scream from. Just the same as the bigger the donor, the better the access to politicians.

This is the changing landscape of our political system, and it is for the better. We are restoring the power to the people - where it should be. I am glad to see the right's netroots gaining more traction and control in their parties destiny. If both parties return to their traditional values then our political system will be much better all the way around.

Whistle Blower has become a bad term in the Bush administration and they won't stop trying to silent them:

Two senior officials at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives who opposed many questionable management and spending decisions by the agency's former director are being moved to lower-ranking positions effective Thursday, officials said.

Lying to get us into war is no problem. Executing a war in such a poor fashion is no problem. Violating the civil rights of millions of Americans - ehh it's ok. Violating the Constitution by vigorous use of "signing statements" - well they will give him a pass. All that doesn't matter, but immigration does:

Several Republican lawmakers have sharply criticized the imprisonment of two border agents who were convicted of shooting a Mexican drug smuggler in the back and attempting to cover it up.

Appeals to President Bush to pardon the two men, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, have increased since one was assaulted by fellow inmates in a federal prison last weekend.

Yesterday, two Republican Congressmen had strong words to say about Bush, with one even threatening impeachment.

"Reps. Walter Jones, R-N.C., and Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., blasted President Bush for not intervening in the case, with Rohrabacher hinting that he would consider pressing for impeachment if either of the two agents was killed in prison," Dave Montgomery reports for McClatchy Newspapers.

"Now, I tell you, Mr. President, if these men -- especially after this assault -- are murdered in prison, or if one of them lose their lives, there's going to be some kind of impeachment talk in Capitol Hill," Rohrabacher said.

(Raw Story has the audio of this statement)

This case is definitely weird, but if the Republicans would have paid attention to other actions of the administration then it might have been avoidable. When we got an Attorney General who believes Habeas Corpus does not apply to all citizens, we got a problem. When we can imprison an American Citizen like Jose Padilla for years without facing a judge then we got a problem.

Dana Rohrabacher needs to talk to his own party about their lack of oversight and their threats against Democrats when it comes to "impeachment" talk about Bush. If all the details of this case are true then it is really bad. True a lot worse has happened during this Presidency and those merit just the same amount of attention, if not more.

Funny how the same party that argued "if people can't survive on minimum wage, they need to work more" is bitching like a bunch of children about having to work a full 5 day week. The Politico has an article up with such quotes as this:

"They should really work us so we get things done, then give us a few weeks off so we can do the Kiwanis Clubs and all that," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. "If you leave early Monday, yes, you can get here for a 4:30 vote, but you lose the whole working day of Monday."

American workers work some of the longest hours in the world. Our lawmakers should be held to the same. If you can't handle the hours then it is time to quit. That is what any employer would tell an employee whining like this. Well guess what! We are your employers and this employer is saying exactly that.

The fact of the matter is the Republicans created this mess themselves. The last session of Congress had the most days off in over 50 years. America has a lot of problems going on that needs addressed, yet they chose to take constant days off. Well the Democrats put a stop to it. I bet a lot of our soldiers are tired of working 7 days straight for 8-12 months straight in Iraq. Why don't you fix that problem then maybe you can have your time off.

On a related note - this is the perfect reason why we need term limits and election reform placed on Congress. They get there and stay there for years and then can't adjust to "real world' situations. On the same note, they do have to raise a lot of money to even run. Election reform, including public financing of elections, would put an end to that. Instead of working their 2 years to just run again, then that 2 years would be more focused on our problems.

Heard about this "Pelosi wants a military jet" crap going on? Well Josh is all over it:

Below we noted that the Washington Times story about Nancy Pelosi's demand for a military aircraft for travel back to her district appears to be a crock. According to Thinkprogress and reporting in Roll Call, former Speaker Denny Hastert used a military plane for travel to history district. But the plane he used couldn't carry enough fuel to fly nonstop across the country.

A Pelosi aide told Roll Call: "The Air Force determined that [Pelosi’s] safety would be best ensured by using a plane that has the fuel capacity to go coast-to-coast. All we’re asking for is what Hastert had."

So this seems to be the issue: a military aircraft for the Speaker has been the rule since 9/11. But a larger plane is needed for Pelosi since she flies back and forth to California, not Illinois.

I can fully understand having the Speaker of the House being granted this kind of security after 9/11. I knew Hastert had it and never complained. The Speaker is 3rd in line for the Presidency and it would be a good idea to make sure they are safe. What gets me is how this is now an issue because Pelosi wants it they want Pelosi to have it.

Of course there have been other similar issues that have not received this amount of attention. Here is one from last year:

It would seem the Secretary of Health & Human Services (HHS), Michael Leavitt, has been using a GulfStream 3 jet that belongs to the Centers for Disease Control for his own private agenda.

According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the private jet has been used on several occasions to transport the secretary to events all across the US, which comes to a total of around $700,000 (just this year). The primary purpose of the jet, however, is to quickly transport personnel and equipment in the event of an emergency, not act as the secretary's personal aircraft.

Now think about that. Leavitt was using the CDC's first responder jet to go around and promote Bush's screwed up Medicare plan. Last year! What was happening last year that would possibly require the CDC to use that jet? Oh yeah - all that bird flu stuff!

Of course the original Pelosi article is sourced to the Washington Times and they have about as much credibility as Bush himself. It was nothing but a hit piece at Pelosi that the Times has decided to twist around to serve their own political slant. Of course CNN is now jumping on the bandwagon and it looks like they are following the same lack of reporting that the Washington Times did.

Here is an option. Perhaps we do away with the Air Force transporting any politician around. That means even George Bush losses Air Force One. We are the only nation on the planet who goes through all this stuff to protect our elected officials. Come on - if Tony Blair can fly commercial so can Bush, Cheney and even Pelosi. Conservatives should love this plan - think of all the extra money dumped back into the corporations if we did this.

They don't even think our troops deserve a couple hours of their time on the Senate floor. Why? To protect the most hated President in the history of the United States.

This should mean a new war if the Democrats care about Iraq. Throw the "bi-partisan" bullshit out the window. The Democrats are in power because the people wanted change. Now use that power to stop anything Republican. Don't give them one piece of damn legislation until they stop their childish games. Reid should also get with Pelosi and carry this over to the House. They get nothing until they grow up and realize their crap is what made them the minority - not the Democrats.

More destruction of America, thanks to George Bush:

President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy.

In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities.

This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts. It suggests that the administration still has ways to exert its power after the takeover of Congress by the Democrats.

The article goes on to say how this plan is being championed by businesses. Why? Because they will have less regulation and enforcement put on them. Now think of how many miners have died in this country over the past 6 years.

The Bush Administration has made it clear which side it is on. Mine workers have faced increasingly unsafe conditions because of rollbacks of health and safety regulations, the appointment of former mining industry executives to federal mine safety agencies and the slashing of the budget and staff for safety inspection.

With this Executive Order, watch that number continue to climb, as well as other work related injuries. Watch the pollution levels emitted by factories increase. This is only a small part of what can go wrong with this plan.

Another thing I find really interesting about this is the affect it will have on the process. You now add a very heavy bureaucratic level to any policy enforcement in this country. This also adds more fat to the government. What happened to Conservatives being for "smaller government"? In a sense Bush has been. He has significantly cut the budgets of departments like the EPA and OSHA. Now those stripped down budgets will have to find space for a "political officer" (a term from the old Soviet days that really rings true today).

I know the Democrats have only had control of Congress for a little under a month now, but it is time to reign in. George Bush is destroying this country. He pushes the laws, and in many cases breaks it. When you think of the number of investigations witch hunts the Republicans had into Bill Clinton, then you need to ask the Democrats if they feel Clinton was worse than Bush.

The old meme given by Republicans that "Democrats don't want to go after Bush or they will suffer the losses the Republicans did when they went after Clinton" is total bullshit. Yeah they suffered some losses, but they also went after a highly popular President for bullshit reasons. What is more important - the safety of American workers, the Iraq war, the rewriting of the Constitution by the President OR a blow job?

Bush it the most unpopular President ever. He does not do anything the American people want. Because of that the American people voted overwhelmingly for a Democratically controlled Congress last fall. Now the Democrats need to stand up and reign in their power against the runaway presidency, or they will face a coup in 2008.

This story has received a lot of attention this past week:

Commissioners at one of the country's biggest airports are considering punishing Muslim cab drivers who refuse service to passengers possessing alcohol or guide dogs.

The cabbies claim transporting those items violates Islamic law.

"It is against our faith and the airport is discriminating against Muslim drivers," says a cab driver who would only give his first name, Hashim.

Three-quarters of the 900 cabbies licensed to operate at the airport are Muslim, most from Somalia. It is unclear how many are adhering to this letter of Islamic law which considers the purchase, drinking and transport of alcoholic beverages a sin.

Of course this is being used to fuel more intolerance against Muslims in this country, but how does it compare to other issues in America? Take the case of pharmacists who refuse to dispense the Morning After pill. These people are given a "pass" because it "violates their religious beliefs", yet the same meme doesn't apply to the Muslim world?

Perhaps this paragraph from the same article sums it up best:

"This is a public access issue," says Chuck Samuelson, of the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, "Bottom line is we are a secular society, and that's the way it is."

Yes we are. If people are going to take a stand and denounce these cab drivers for what they are doing, they better be prepared to denounce doctors who refuse to provide legal abortions due to "religious conflict" or pharmacists who refuse to dispense the very legal morning after pill. And remember on that note - a Muslim refusing to transport someone for having alcohol with them is not putting a life endanger. Refusing to provide medical care very well could put a life in danger. How do the hypocritical wingnuts justify that?

Remember last year when Clinton had that sit down with Chris Wallace on FOX News? He was tired of everyone saying he caused 9/11, so he let Chris know about it. The wingnuts quickly jumped on it and was calling him things like "unhinged".

Well CNN just re-aired the Wolf Blitzer interview of Dick Cheney. Actually seeing it all at once, I have come to a big conclusion. If Clinton was "unhinged" with Wallace, then Cheney was down right combative with Blitzer. The most distinguishing factor is that during Clinton's interview there was an attempt to rewrite history, while the Cheney interview involved the most important current event in our nation - Iraq.

Cheney exhibited such a massive disconnect from not only the people of this country, but also George Bush, that he should be forced out of office. This level of hostility people in the administration shows towards the American people is not acceptable. They talk about showing divide towards our enemy - yet the unwarranted attacks of people like Cheney sends this message stronger than any debate in Congress. I guess Cheney was just working to embolden our enemy even more.

Oh yes - he would make a great President.