"I'm Not Saying, I'm Just Saying"

More on the politics of the day (especially since lousy Kansas destroyed my bracket).  I know the GOP and Tea Partiers and rubbing their hands together getting ready for a huge gain in one or both chambers of our fair Congress.  But, 8 months is a long time.  Look at recent history, for example.  Don't forget, McCain was polling great against both potential Democratic presidential nominees, Obama and Clinton, in late March and early April of 2008 in key batteground states.  Let me be clear, I think the Dems will lose seats in the House for sure and maybe even the Senate.  However, it may not be as bad for Dems and good for GOP'ers.   

Things can and will change.  Voters attention will shift away from health insurance reform by Nov. 2010, trust me.  Surely Glenn Beck will come up with another political crisis at which he can point his fanatical Tea Party followers by Nov. 2010.  And don't forget that Tea Party candidates may run and split the GOP votes in some midterm elections.  Look at what happened in the upstate New York special election in 2008, a Dem won a seat that been held by the GOP since Reconstruction.  Financial regulation reform is the next political fight to be had and it should be a doozy.  Who knows what will be at the top of voters' lists as THE important issue when Nov. 2010 rolls around.  Memories fade.  It's only March 2010 not November 2010.  8 months till the midterm elections is a long, long, long time, especially in politics.  To quote a good friend of mine, "I'm not saying, I'm just saying."

Who Said Change Was Going To Be Easy

Health insurance reform passed.  At least some form of it.  Here's a decent synopsis of what's in the bill.  It's not what ultra-liberals wanted, a single-payer, run by the government, health insurance option available to all people regardless of income level.  It's definitely not what conservatives wanted, which was to maintain the status quo in which 30+ million Americans were without healthcare. 

Remember, conservatives have been against every major piece of progressive, "liberal" legislation in the last one hundred years including, but, not limited to, labor laws (including mandatory maximum work weeks, establishment of a minimum wage and every increase since then for example), social security, disability, medicare, medicaid.  I'm sure there's more but, that's all that I can think of off the top of my head.  Tea partiers must be besides themselves.  And will Limbaugh really leave the country now?

Obama ran on change and this legislation is certainly that.  Health insurance legislation was one the cornerstones of Obama's change platform.  The Dems won the presidency and both chambers of Congress on the coattails of Obama's pledge of change.  And when a party wins both the presidency and the Congress you get change.  And then you get a political backlash against that change.  It almost happens like clockwork, especially in a president's first term.  In fact only 3 presidents since Reconstruction have netted seats in midterm elections (FDR-first midterm gain, Clinton-second midterm gain and W.-first midterm gain; I attritbute W.'s midterm success in 2002 to the goodwill directed towards him and the GOP in the aftermath of 9/11, but, that's just my take).  Let's see what happens next.  Maybe the Dems lose the House or Senate in the midterm elections.  I certainly doubt they lose both.  Dodd's financial reform bill just flew through the Senate committee and is headed to the Senate floor for debate.  More change on the way?  Who could possibly be against financial rules changes in the wake of "too big to fail?"

But, as usual, I digress.  So there will be changes in health insurance but not as much as some wanted and way more than others desired.  That compromises were made should surprise no one.  Don't forget some of the definitions of compromise: 1. To arrive at a settlement by making concessions; 2. To reduce the quality, value, or degree of something.

State of the Speech

(the following was written during/after the State of the Union - text here)

Key, but not all, topics covered: recession, stimulus bill, bailout, budget, environment/green tech, jobs bill, health insurance reform, financial reform, super-majorities in the Senate, education, Supreme Court decision regarding corporate spending on campaigns, national security, the wars, veterans, loose nukes, Haiti, civil rights, don't ask don't tell.

I'll be honest, to me it seemed a bit partisan and almost too casual at the beginning. Too much joking around. Too many jabs at the GOP'ers and veiled blaming of the past administration for the mess we're in. Were the jabs and assertions regarding the past administration deserved and/or true? Yes. But, the State of the Union doesn't seem like the time or place. Maybe that's just me.

Of course during the speech I also didn't like the GOP'er's snickers and and passivity. I especially found annoying minority whip Eric Cantor smirking and shaking his head every time they showed him--it was incredibly annoying. He looked like a second grade smart-aleck in the back of the room making fun of the kid giving a speech at the front of the classroom. And GOP minority leader John Boehner was as orange-tan as ever. Boehner and Cantor next too each other looked like Tan-man & Grinnin', the boy blunder.

Towards the end of the speech the tone turned more serious. The President dished out and took some blame for where we are.

Overall impressions: Tense. But, these are tense, hyper-partisan times we live in. I've seen better and I've seen him do much better too. It seemed a little like a campaign stump speech, especially at the beginning. I want State of the Union speeches to be inspirational and forward looking. And President Obama's speech was inspirational and forward looking at times, especially towards the end.

Overall grade for the speech according to yours truly: B (maybe because I expect a lot from President Obama-of course I expect a lot out of the Congress generally and especially the Senate.)

Happy Halloween

(the below is from a little while ago but, Halloween appropriate in my opinion...)

What can I say, I saw the movie Zombieland and came up with the above.

Yeah, Sure, You Should Trust What the Insurance Industry Says...

and while you're at it I have some lovely, wooded, spacious ocean front property you might be interested in buying from me in Arizona.

In case you didn't hear, the insurance industry issued a "report". That "report" "revealed" that insurance rates would actually go up if Congress passed and President Obama signed insurance reform legislation. I don't find it surprising that a report written by the insurance industry would describe the terrible consequences of passing health insurance reform. I'll be honest, I didn't read the report, I don't think I need to, and I'll explain why through other examples, I also don't read/listen to the following:
1) movie reviews by the studios that produced the movies. 
2) book reviews by the author of a the book.
3) Glenn Beck raving about how great the 9/12 project is/was and how great the Tea Party is since he helped found and promote both and has profited financially from both.
4) anything Dick Cheney has to say about foreign policy, national security, torture, terrorism or Gitmo (because he and the previous administration did such a swell job on all of those issues).
5) anything Liz Cheney has to say about what her father Dick Cheney has said about foreign policy, national security, torture, terrorism or Gitmo (because her father and the previous administration did such a swell job on all of those issues).

but I digress...

Some potential problems/questions I have with the insurance industry's report that rates would go up if there is, in fact, reform passed:
1) Which version of the bill are they talking about? Remember there are at least 5 Senate versions in various Senate committees as well as whatever comes out of the House.
2) What if the legislation prohibits insurance companies from raising rates? Are they just going to break the law and raise rates anyway?
3) What if there is indeed a public option? Would the insurance industry put themselves out of business and raise rates while there is a more inexpensive public option? Would that be a bad thing?
4) What if there is a "trigger" for a public option in a reform bill that is passed. Is the insurance industry promising that they will raise rates and bring about a public option? Given this scenario, I say, "raise rates!"
5) What if people realized that the insurance industry wrote a report critical of health insurance reform?

And surprise, surprise, at least one former insurance industry insider has already declared that this report is "bogus." Are you really surprised?

Maybe the insurance industry fat cats are getting seriously worried that a bill will actually make it to President Obama's desk and the release of this "report" is the first sign of desperation. What else can the big insurance companies do? They've already used their record profits to line the pockets of any politician that will take their money and utter nonsense like, "death panels." Maybe they're grasping at straws.

Who would just blindly believe what these insurance industry yahoos have to say about health insurance reform? Again, if you do believe their report I have some lovely ocean front property in Arizona you might like to purchase from me...

Congress-Land

What can I say, I saw the movie Zombieland and came up with the above.

This Is the Speech Some Folks Are Afraid Of?

The White House released a transcript of the speech President Obama is due to deliver to students across America, or at least to those students allowed to see and hear it by their parents and/or schools. Read the transcript of the speech, please. What are some afraid of?

Keep in mind that I believe past presidents have spoken students. Was there this type of outcry when they addressed students?

Maybe Obama's opponents should keep their eye on the ball. Why all the fuss about a speech written for kids and asking them tp try to do well in school? Maybe GOP'ers, and everyone else for that matter, would be better served discussing what exactly President Obama is going to say in his address to Congress regarding health insurance reform. Just a thought.

- GOP TARGET PRACTICE

Email Your Elected Officials and Let Them Know How You Feel About an Issue

Email you Congressperson (you need your full zip code, ie, 12345-1234, if you don't know it click here to get it.)

Email you Senators

Email the President

I live in Dallas, Texas so:

For State of Texas issues email your State Senator or State Rep. by following the links here. Email the Governor of Texas here.

For Dallasites regarding municipal issues email the mayor, your council member or the whole city council by following the links here. (Not sure who your council member is? Click here for a map of the districts.)

You should let your elected officials in Washington D.C. or your state or your town know how you feel on issues important to you, no matter what side of any issue you're on. Imagine how tedious it was in decades past when you had to actually write a letter, address an envelope and take said letter to a mailbox. Now with this marvelous invention called the internet you have no excuse. And if you don't think they or their staff read emails you're wrong. They're in the business of getting elected so they take their constituents' emails very seriously. Click on the links above and email your elected officials and let them know what you think on any issue you'd like. Pass this along to others so they can too.

- Latest Video From Autotune the News

Walking a Tightrope

Sotomayor Obama RNC GOP Republicans nomination

Obama vs. Jindal

Or, alternate title, Jindal used Katrina in an analogy to demonstrate what?!?!

First here's Obama:

Next here's the GOP response from Jindal:

I didn't watch these until today by the way.

Obama vs. Jindal, Obama easily wins, at least when it comes to speaking.

Obama gave the usual type of speech, the "things are bad but we're America and we'll figure this out" speech. He mixed in some optimism with the gloom and doom that's been coming from him, his administration and the news in general. But remember, Obama wants to keep expectations low. And expectations should be low because of the mess we're in. He cannot just flip a switch and bring back a mid 90's type of economy. Also, Obama wants to do a lot and that's going to cost a lot. I'm not quite sure where the money is going to come from but, since when have presidents worried about that? I digress. His speech was good, not great, but good.

As for Governor Jindal, where do I start? First, let me get this straight, Jindal is the "rising star" of the GOP? Wow. I'd hate to hear from the GOP's lesser "stars".

Second, and others have pointed this out (like Jon Stewart, I saw his show before watching Jindal's speech, I get it now), but is this how he speaks all the time? It was like he was talking to a classroom of first graders, as if he was talking down to me because I couldn't possibly wrap my head around such weighty issues.

Third and lastly, he used Katrina in an analogy in the exact opposite way as I would have thought a politician would. Apparently, what Jindal learned from Katrina is that the government (local, state and national by the way) did a bad job in helping people out after the hurricane and Katrina victims would have been better served had the government done nothing. Therefore, in this economic crisis, according to Jindal, the government should do nothing and just cut taxes again.

I took a different lesson away from Katrina when it comes to government intervention. The lesson I took away from Katrina regarding government intervention is that the government shouldn't:

1) do nothing and wait until the problem is a crisis then,

2) do something, do it clumsily and hurt more than helps.

The government in the last decade has become so laissez faire that there was no meaningful monitoring or regulation of Wall Street like there was no meaningful monitoring and maintenance of the levees prior to Katrina. Like the people shouting from rooftops about lack of maintenance of the levees before Katrina, those shouting about the lack of regulation of Wall Street before this recession found no one in government willing to listen until it was too late. The last two years the government cut taxes, and that was too little, too late like the government response after Katrina was too little, too late (and by the way is still too little). Brilliant. The GOP advocates lesser government including less regulation and less spending. Of course that's worked great recently, unless of course you're worried about the recession or levees breaking.

GOP On Economic Crisis & Stimulus Bill

GOP, House, Political Cartoon, Republican, Senate

"NAH! NAH! NAH! NAH! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Congress, GOP, Iraq, Obama, Political Cartoon, recession, Republican, spending, stimulus, taxes

Economic Stimulus Bill Debate

Democrat, GOP, Obama, recession, Republican, stimulus

This Is As Close As I Get To "Fair & Balanced"

Or, alternate title, we have someone in office because, in part, of who they are related to, let's be sure about it this time.

Caroline Kennedy is positioned to potentially be appointed to Hillary Clinton's soon to be vacant Senate seat. Rhetorical fillers, such as "um", "err", "like" and "you know", for example, are pet peeves of mine. Here are some clips about Kennedy over-using the phrase "you know" in a series of recent interviews over the course of one day:

Here's a news report about her use of the phrase "you know" and how she did generally in a series of interviews:

And here's John Stewart commenting on it, amongst other things, toward the end of this clip:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Crisis in the Senate - Deliberative Disorder

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

I understand this is potentially only a rhetorical crutch. But, again, it's one of my pet peeves. And that's not to say that the Senate doesn't have members with questionable resumes or poor communication skills. Also, remember how some thought W.'s verbal gaffes are/were funny? I never thought they were funny. I thought they were and are embarrassing. To me this would be like a professional basketball point guard that can only dribble with his left hand. This is just one series of interviews on one day. And maybe she was just having a bad day. However, verbal inadequacies may be representative of a lack of adequacy in other areas relevant to public office, such as sound decision making or lack of knowledge regarding key policy issues. Maybe. I guess we'll find out if Caroline Kennedy is appointed.

Lieberman's Lucky the Dems Don't Operate Like the Corleone Family

Or alternate title, "I know it was you Fredo (Joe), you broke my heart."

Or second alternate title, "Tell Mike(Barrack) it was only business. I always liked him." (Tessio/Lieberman to Hagen/Biden)

Lieberman declared himself an "Independent" some years ago and defeated the Democratic nominee for Senate from his state. Then, he supported the Republican nominee for president this year. He not only endorsed McCain but campaigned for him. He not only campaigned for him but spoke at the Republican convention. He had promised to only be supportive of his friend McCain and not speak negatively about Obama. But, he ended up going negative on Obama. This is a former Democratic nominee for vice president that turned his back on his former party and its nominee this time.

So, what do the Democrats do to punish Lieberman for pulling a Benedict Arnold? What would Michael Corleone do? Well, we know what Michael did to Tessio and his own brother when they betrayed the family. I'm not saying the mafia and political parties operate the same way (they kind of do except without the violence/killing and it's legal) but, when a political figure goes against their party or their former party one would expect there to be some type of consequence, especially when the betrayed party just won both chambers of the Congress and the White House. What would Karl Rove do? But, the question that really matters is what did the Dems do in response to Lieberman jumping ship? Would they kick him out of their voting caucus? Take away his chairmanship and committee seats? Exile him to the wasteland of a Senator truly without a party?

Nope. The Dems did pretty much nothing. A slap on the wrist. They took away one committee seat and let him keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. That's all. And Obama led the charge to let bygones be bygones. Why? Maybe because the Dems are nice and really like Lieberman. No, that's not it. It may be because the Dems are so close to that magical 60 vote filibuster buster in the Senate they can taste it. So if they have to make nice with Lieberman to get closer to 60 they will and they did. The Dems did take away a committee seat to begin to satisfy those who wanted political blood. Now they just have to hope Franken pulls out a miracle in Minnesota or bank on turning some moderate Senate Republicans to their side on key votes to overcome any filibuster. For Lieberman though, he essentially got away with political murder because the situation allowed him to. Had the Dems only been at about 50-55 seats in the Senate he may have ended up taking a political swim with the fishes for betraying his former Democratic policitcal "family".

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15712.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=6277042

"GOP Forms Circular Firing Squad"*

Or, "hey, that hurts when you stick that knife in my back."

*title of this post taken from the title of a great article on politico.com:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14891.html

Maybe some of the Republicans are tired of McCain the Maverick. By the way, I'm starting to think that Erratic/Maverick McCain is more correct in describing his campaigning style.

So the latest bad news for McCain is from his own party (supposedly it's his party, but you wouldn't know it from recent headlines). The National Republican Senatorial Committe is running an ad with the central premise that if Senator Dole loses her particular Senate seat the Democrats will control "all branches of govenment," and "have a blank check." So it seems they are assuming an Obama victory.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/NRSC_ad_assumes_Obama_win.html

So McCain's fellow Republican Senatorial leadership is saving their own skin, by essentially advertising, "hey, Obama's going to win, so at least balance him out with a Republican Senator." Ow.

McCain's love/hate relationship with his own party may be why none of Bush's big 527 supporters are going to bat for McCain this election cycle.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14811.html

Lastly, here's another example of the animosity between McCain and his party. The very conservative Washington Times ran a story yesterday titled, "McCain Lambasts Bush Years." McCain takes dead aim at W. and the Republican controlled Congress (of which he was and is a member) instead of going after Obama and the Dems that have controlled Congress the last two years. I'm not sure what McCain's strategy is here. Is going after the Republican base's favorite son, W., and the Republican Congress from 2000-2006 in a newspaper only the Republican base really reads a good idea? Is it telling when the Whitehouse spokesperson has to defend the sitting Republican president against the Republican nominee?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14875.html

This is yet another example of a campaign that is all over the place, attacking everyone and everything, with no clear message or theme. In other words, classic Erratic/Maverick McCain.

Side note: At least the RNC is still finacially supporting McCain in his campaign. Representative, Michele "Joe McCarthy," Bachmann is no longer receiving money from the RNC. Ouch.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14549.html

http://www.twincities.com/news/ci_10786683?source=rss

Side side note: If you're having trouble figuring out who to vote for go to:

http://www.electoralcompass.com/

and take their quiz.

Side side side note: The below link from MoveOn.org helps Obama supporters encourage others to actually get out and vote otherwise the loss of the election could very well be their fault. At the very least it's funny:

http://www.cnnbcvideo.com/taf.html?id=&nid=T8r4wlb0jgTQo4xNqXpIvjQzODEwMA--

Michele Bachmann: the New Joe McCarthy?

 











Channeling Joe McCarthy - Have you no decency, ma'am, at long last ?

Michele Bachmann is a Republican U.S. Representative from the state of Minnesota. Below is a link to a full blog post with part of the interview she had on Oct. 17 with Chris Matthews. In that interview she called Obama, "Anti-American," and called on the media to investigate the U.S. House and Senate to ferret out other "Anti-American" members. I am not the first to say this but, she is raising the specter of Joe McCarthy and one of the darkest times in our county's history by calling for another witch hunt in to so-called "Anti-Americans". Whatever her intentions by making these careless and incendiary comments, they have had an impact that she could not have foreseen. See the link for that consequence.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1008/Bachmann_comments_raising_money_for_opponent.html

Is this indicative of the the general Republican response to opponents with whom they disagree? Plainly, the Republican mantra, whether it be their vice-presidential candidate or Ms. Bachmann, as examples, appears to be at times and at its worst, "if you don't agree with me you must be Anti-American." That type of rote, circular argument (if one can call it an argument without being insulting to those that actually want to have a meaningful debate and trade constructive arguments on issues of substance) is, I would assert, the epitome of "Anti-American." Perhaps one should ask, "have you nothing better to offer to the discourse, ma'am?" But, I again return to that fateful question asked of Joseph McCarthy decades earlier by Joseph Welch that essentially derailed McCarthy and his sad, witch hunting hearings. Specifically, to Ms. Bachmann and those of her ilk I ask, "have you no sense of decency, [ma'am], at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

Update: From

StarTribune.com" style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; width: 452px; height: 17px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 6px; display: block; ">

http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/31261989.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUec7PaP3E77K_0c::D3aDhUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiU