New Year's Resolutions

2009 is about to be another page in the history books and as we look forward to the new year, here are the resolutions that I hope a selected few are making:

1) Rahm Emanuel - Grow a pair of testicles

2) Sarah Palin - Read a book, or a newspaper, or a pamphlet or a menu or anything that might actually contain some useful information

3) John Boehner - Spend some more time working for the people you represent and less time working on your tan

4) Dr. Tom Couburn - Read the Hippocratic oath every day and try to remind yourself that wishing for the death or disability of others is not included

5) Mitch McConnel - Buy a dictionary and remind yourself that there are other useful words included besides no

6) Joe Lieberman - Be thankful that Jews don't believe in hell because there's a special level set aside for people like you

7) Max Baucus and Ben Nelson - Save some of that money from the health care lobby for an early retirement

8) Olympia Snowe - Try to remind yourself that unlike a female lead singer in a band, the world does not revolve around you

9) Newt Gingrich - Announce you're running for President on April 1, so that we can all have a good laugh

10) Keith Olberman - Stop doing the mocking voices because it lowers the perceived quality of your sports commentary

11) Glen Beck & Rush Limbaugh - Come to the realization that (in the words of the immortal Dean Wormer) fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life

That's all for now folks. Have a happy and safe New Year's celebration.

It's a Wonderful Life

'Twas the night before Christmas and all through the house not a creature was stirring, except for me who decided that it was a perfect time to try and write something to celebrate my favorite holiday. Now I can't possibly hope to match the eloquence of my co-conspirator here at Random Thoughts, but that doesn't mean that I can't add my own little bit of holiday cheer.

It has been quite a trying year for me but thankfully I've always had this blog to help me keep my sanity. I can't really express how reassuring it has been to come here and read the thoughts of SJ and of the all the great writers that we have come to call our friends. The passion of Jack Jodell, the healthy cynicism of Vigilante, the spiritualism of the incomparable Gwendolyn Barry, the honesty of Mad Mike and the overall brilliance of so many others whose writing reminds me that our country has not lost its way. I'm far too old to expect a jolly man in red suit to be dropping off gifts for me tomorrow night, but I can honestly say that getting a chance to read the thoughts of our new friends and to discuss the problems of day with people whose opinions I respect so much, has provided me with more than even jolly St. Nick himself could carry on that magical sleigh of his. So this Christmas I'm satisfied with all the gifts I've already gotten. Thank you Yellow Dog, Oso, Beach Bum, Manifesto Joe, Will Hart, Tom Degan, Burr Deming, Truth 101 and anyone I've forgotten to include (it certainly was not an intended slight). I'll even thank our occasional nemesis, Sepp. You have all made the year immeasurably better than it would have been without our dialogue.

I couldn't end this without saying a few more words about my partner in crime here, SJ. He is, without a doubt the most talented person I know and besides being my friend for almost 30 years (for which I am forever in his debt), he quite literally saved my life this year. Anyone who has been fortunate enough to read his articles is aware of his talent. That however does not begin to scratch the surface of who he is. I hate to get all sentimental here, but suffice it to say that I'm not sure where I would be without his help.

So Santa, I know you're busy. I just wanted to let you know that you can skip my house tomorrow. My stocking is already full.

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!

The Age of Reason

I have certainly been among a vocal group who have been critical of the Obama administration and some of their policies. I criticized their policy in Afghanistan. I have criticized their seeming lack of commitment to real health care reform. I have criticized the justice department for not going after the crooks who ran the last administration. I have been critical of their lack of focus on our crumbling public school system. I have been critical of the President turning his back on supporting the cause of gay and lesbian rights.

That being said, I am quite sure that the alternative would have been much, much worse. The Obama campaign was one which soared on the idea that Washington was broken. They made change the linchpin of their campaign and people attached their own hopes and dreams to that theme. However, the idealistic tone of the campaign has been replaced by the realism of trying to govern in this era of obstructionism. It was clear from day one that the Republicans had no intention to work with this President. Their leadership has always signaled that if Obama can get things done, regardless of whether they help the country, then it was a losing proposition for them. The Republican strategy has been to complain about any solutions offered by the Obama administration without offering any solutions of their own. They have lied and stoked their base into a frenzy and have to a great extent been able to control the message coming out of DC.

The Obama administration, for their part, has proceeded with a minimum of drama. As was the case during the campaign, they seem to be sure that their long term strategy will ultimately be successful. Their were many times during the primary and Presidential campaigns that I wanted them to strike back against their opponents. The Obama campaign never took the bait. They had a long term strategy and they basically never deviated from it regardless of the situation on the ground. The major exception being the speech on race that Obama was forced to give after the videos of Reverend Wright were released. I think that the ability to stick to a strategy and stay on message served the Obama campaign very well. I'm not sure that it works as well when it comes to running an administration and winning the hearts and minds of the public. During the campaigns, the enemy (so to speak), was clearly defined and embodied by an opponent. As President, the other side now has literally hundreds of opponents to deal with. A single strategy to defeat a single opponent simply does not work as well, when attacks are coming from everywhere. The White House needs to do a better job of getting their message out to the American public. They need to let people know exactly what they are doing to help them. They need to let people know how they are working to improve their lives. They need to let people know how different this administration is to the one that it followed.

The enthusiasm and hope that the supporters of the Obama campaign had, has been dulled by the consistent onslaught of negativity coming from the opposition. By allowing the Republicans to shape the message of the media, the Obama administration has given up their advantage. Now there is reason for some supporters to feel disillusioned, but for the most part I believe the disappointment comes from perception of the facts as opposed to the actual facts. This is a conflict between idealism and realism. Pragmatism is the place where dreams go to die, and dreams do die very hard indeed. After living through the nightmare of the two Bush Presidencies, the soaring oratory and big ideals of candidate Obama seemed like the answer to the dreams of so many. Supporters sent money, knocked on doors, stuffed envelopes, wrote impassioned blogs, made phone calls, talked to their friends and neighbors with the understanding that if Obama were elected, everything would be different. They would finally have someone in the White House who had the same agenda as they did. They would finally have someone in the White House who would take on the special interests. They would finally have a voice at the center of power that spoke for them after so many years in the wilderness. And after the pure exultation of election night, the reality of trying to bring change to Washington DC has smacked a lot of people in the face.

People have suggested that they will not be as enthusiastic about supporting the President the next time around. We already have polls suggesting that a huge majority of Republicans will be voting in the mid term elections while a bare majority of Democrats say the same thing. This feeling of malaise amongst Democrats and Independents who voted for Obama comes from how the message is being framed. Everything that has been done by this administration has been constantly criticized by the Republicans. From questioning Obama's birth certificate to suggesting that health care reform would lead to death panels killing older Americans, the ridiculous claims have come fast and furious from the opposition. The Obama administration has answered these claims, but never with the fervor or volume with which they were made and as we have seen over and over again it is the person who yells the loudest that gets the most attention.

The Obama administration has retained its campaign strategy of sticking to the agenda and not letting the outside noise distract them. The health care debate is a good example of that. I wrote an article back in August that suggested that the White House knew all along where this debate would turn out and that everything that happened along the way was simply window dressing. The administration insisted on first trying to get a bipartisan agreement on health care reform. Looking back (and even at the time) most will admit that this was a waste of time. However the President had promised during his campaign that he would seek to find middle ground with the opposition and this was the first high profile policy debate that would test this promise. We may look back now and say that the first five months of the health care debate were wasted in an attempt to find some or any Republican support, but the President was simply fulfilling a promise made to the American people. The President's supporters on the left have railed about the fact that single payer was never on the table, however candidate Obama always said that we would have to work within the private health insurance system. Some have simply forgotten that point or assumed that the President was just saying what he needed to say. I am now sure that the Obama administration always knew that the debate over health care reform was going to come down to a fight between Democratic Senators. The White House was secure in the fact that they could achieve health insurance reform but were less sure about what other health care reform could be achieved given the deep divisions within the party.

There is nothing wrong with a long term approach or in being able to anticipate the outcome of a debate. However since most people in the country are not privy to the inner workings of the White House, their attitude comes off as extremely nonchalant. To the outsider it may look like the White House was not fully engaged in the debate or that they did not have a hand in the outcome. I'm sure that neither could be further from the truth. The seeming lack of a sense of urgency from the White House is just a manifestation of the "no drama Obama" strategy from the campaign. And while this approach may indeed work well in the long run, in the short term it leaves those who worked so hard and invested so much in this campaign, feeling a little cold. The idealism of the campaign has now run head on into the reality of actually running the country and fending off attacks from outside and inside the party.

Idealism is a necessary part of the political process. Without high ideals, even baby steps are never taken. It took this country 100 years after the slaves were released to produce a piece of legislation that guaranteed the rights of the descendants of those freed slaves. None of that would have come about without the idealism of those who believed that the country should and would do better. But just think of how many people worked and believed and tried to bring about some semblance of equality, only to die without seemingly ever moving the needle. Our ideas and our ideals are what give us hope that tomorrow will be better than today. The campaign of Barack Obama galvanized those ideas and ideals into one recognizable force. It would have been impossible for the Presidency of Barack Obama to live up to the numerous dreams that were built into the smiles and tears of those who celebrated that victory last November.

But I would ask those who are wavering in their enthusiasm for the President to define exactly what is it that he has done that is contrary to what he said he would do. He will increase the level of troops in Afghanistan, as he said he would do. He has worked to bring about the first meaningful health insurance reform ever enacted, as he said he would do. He has guaranteed health care for millions of children around the country. The stimulus package helped stave off a potential depression. He has helped to rehabilitate the reputation of the United States in the international community. He has tried to move forward on climate change. There are still many more issues to deal with. Education, the deficit, job creation, terrorism, etc., etc., but there are still three years left in his administration. It would be unfair to judge someone after a job is only 1/4 completed. It would be like complaining that the trim isn't done after painters were only 1/4 through the job of painting your house. I am willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt on most of the issues that he has yet to focus on. I am sure that he has a four year strategy in place. Perhaps he focuses on education next year. Perhaps he decided that education reform was best handled in an election year because it should be universally popular. Perhaps he's decided to wait until his third year to tackle "don't ask, don't tell", because he knows it is a potentially divisive issue. The President and the people around him are smarter than I am and while I can get fairly impatient at times, I have to believe that every scenario has been discussed and planned for.

The Obama administration must do a better job of getting their message out to the people. They cannot lay back in the hope that eventually the news of the day will turn in their favor. It is a fact that 20,000 teachers have jobs here in New York because of the stimulus money. Why don't more people know that? Given the state of the public schools here in NY, I can't imagine the chaos that would have ensued if the number of teachers and administrators had to be decreased by 1/3. The White House should be pointing to that number and to those like it around the country to show exactly what the stimulus money is doing. Don't just site numbers like 1.4 million jobs saved or created. What does that mean? How do you quantify that number? The Republicans have attacked that number as bogus. Well if you actually show real people in real jobs that would not have existed without the stimulus, it makes it harder to refute. I'm sure the people on Fox would never report about the number of state employees who still have jobs because of the stimulus, but if the White House made more of a point of emphasizing these positives, I'm sure the message that is reaching the public would change.

Image via WikipediaIdealism and reality can coexist quite comfortably among the supporters of the President. Idealism is the engine that drives realism. Idealism provides the dreams, realism provides the policy. The next three years are going to be driven by the hopes and dreams of those who voted on that fateful day last November. Those dreams may not always be paid off in full, but I believe that we can rest assured that will be addressed in the full light of day. Every dream and every hope can't be addressed immediately and it is up to those who dreamt and hoped for something better to allow this administration the time it needs to work toward those goals. I will probably still be impatient at the pace of Washington DC, but there is nothing that can be done about that. I will probably still write angry articles about the Obama administration from time to time, but then idealism is almost never practical.

Tower of Babel

Oral Roberts died a couple of days ago and just as with the passing of Jerry Falwell, I say goodbye and good riddance. For some reason America has turned to these so called "men of faith" for moral guidance over the past century. From Father Coughlin spewing his anti-Semitic message over the radio in the twenties to today's kinder, gentler anti-gay speech from the likes of Rick Warren, Americans have looked to these people to reinforce their own bigoted views.

America is currently faced with a choice of being a nation that cares for its own or abandons those that it deems unacceptable to the proverbial wolves. Health care reform has been debated on this site and on many other sites ad infinitum, and yet we have yet to hear from those who are supposedly our moral compass. Where are the religious leaders standing up for the weak, the sick, the poor? Isn't that supposed to be at the point of the teachings of Jesus? Aren't those who benefit so handsomely from teaching the supposed word of God responsible for standing up for those among us who are unable to do it themselves. The 50 million uninsured in this country are probably among the least likely to vote. The poor and the sick don't spend their time trying to lobby Congress. They don't drop off checks for their representatives. They don't get invited to the White House to share their views on how to get the economy going. They are too busy trying to survive until tomorrow. They don't have the luxury of time.

Our so called religious leaders in this country should be spending their time looking after the concerns of the least among us. Instead they spend their time railing against gay marriage and comparing gay sex to bestiality. I guess they ask themselves, what would Jesus do, and decide that he would try to make as much money as he could while advancing a political agenda that excludes and stigmatizes millions of people. The tens of thousands of people who will die this year and the millions that have died since the health care reform debate was introduced over 50 years ago, all are screaming from the grave. Where are the religious leaders who are fighting for our cause? Where are the funding drives to help pressure Congress into passing some meaningful legislation? Why are the Mormons spending untold millions around the country to prevent consenting adults from showing their love for each other by having their union sanctioned by the state? Wouldn't that money be better spent on trying to help people get decent health care? Wouldn't that money be better spent trying to save a few of those tens of thousands that will die this year because they couldn't afford simple preventative care?

Televangelists tell their flock that they are preaching the word of God. They are put on earth just to do God's will. I can only hope that they are talking about the God of the Old Testament. You know the one, the mean, angry and vindictive God. The God who would make his most faithful followers sacrifice a son or suffer years of devastation to prove their loyalty. A God who would keep Moses from seeing the holy land because of a small transgression. I am fairly sure that God would come up with some new level of suffering for those who are now profiting in his name. When money becomes the goal of your supposed religious endeavor, then the only thing that you are worshiping is the almighty dollar.

I believe that there is nothing that can be preyed upon more by the unscrupulous among us than a persons faith. The promise of everlasting life is a powerful tool in the hands of those who would twist that belief for their own benefit. It's very clear why the most visible religious leaders have remained silent on this issue. They are protecting their money source. Taking a stand would cause some of those dollars to stop flowing and that is clearly unacceptable. However, by not taking a stand, they have thrown their hat in with those who prefer the status quo. They have taken a stand with those who would tell those uninsured who will die this year that they should have been born rich. They take a stand with those who tell the uninsured and under insured that they don't care if they have to chose between medicine and food. They take a stand with those who tell parents who cannot afford to take their children to the dentist that their children simply aren't worth the effort.

I suppose I've been hard on those who preach for profit. As a group they have done good things. They have helped many, but I am sure that the number of people killed or who have died in the name of religion outnumbers the number of people who have been helped. So as our "religious leaders" sit this one out, I personally long for the day that faith is no longer has a dollar sign on it. I long for the day when people can observe whatever religious practices they would like without having to pay for the privilege. I long for the day when faith is a personal and private choice. Perhaps then we could do away with these supposed moral leaders whose priority is to live as comfortable a life as possible. Perhaps then our country will live up to the words of the Declaration of Independence. I believe that we are a compassionate and caring people, and left to our own devices, we as a people would do the right thing. We don't need to be led down a path by someone whose morals we use as a substitute for our own.

Running to Stand Still

I wanted to revisit an article that I wrote back in January. It was my wishlist for the Obama administration. I know this is probably premature, but I think that as the year draws to an end, it's a valid exercise to see if we have made any progress toward fulfilling those goals.

Let's start with the "war":

"My first issue for the Obama administration is Afghanistan. Concurrent with our withdrawal from Iraq, the President has already said that he will be increasing our presence in Afghanistan. The issue that I have with the war in Afghanistan is the same one I had with Iraq. There is no real definition of "victory". We are essentially fighting a guerrilla war against small bands of terrorists across a vast stretch of land. I really would like to know what our ultimate goal is in Afghanistan. Is the goal to wipe out the Taliban and all the terrorists in the area? If so, that seems to be an unreasonable goal. Is the goal to set up a government that is capable of withstanding the challenges from the Taliban or a similar terrorist group? That also seems unreasonable... A long term occupation of a country in the Middle East only leads to the breeding of more extremists. Without an exit strategy, we risk a never ending war and the creation of a new generation of people who are dedicated to our downfall."

As we now know, the Obama administration will be sending an additional American troops to Afghanistan, along with asking for increased participation from our NATO allies. My question still is, what is the goal? If the goal is to train the Afghan forces and build up their defenses, then I don't understand why that would require so many additional troops. Does it require over 100,000 American troops to train soldiers? How long will it take to get that job done? When are our troops coming home? How many more trillions can we afford to spend on an unwinable war, when we have so many problems at home? Are we making ourselves safer or are we just creating a new generation of people who are bent on our destruction? I guess tonight the President will give us his vision of what the future holds for us in Afghanistan. I will be looking for some answers and hopefully we'll get some because we haven't heard anything from this administration so far that makes me think that we are any closer to bringing our troops home.

"The second issue on my list is health care... It seems almost inconceivable to me that this country, which is still the richest on the planet by far, would allow it's citizens to die needlessly because they can't afford a visit to the doctor or dentist. How can any of us sleep at night knowing that there are children who will die needlessly because of simple infections? How can we allow people to be saddled with mountainous debts because the treatment that saved their lives, wasn't covered by their insurance? How can we continue to make people chose between debt and death? ... The lobbyists for the drug companies, the lobbyists for the medical profession, the lobbyists from the insurance companies, are all going to be applying as much pressure as possible to make sure that this gravy train keeps on rolling. The human cost in lives lost and lives destroyed is never taken into account."

Obviously there have been thousands of words written on this blog and on many of our friends blogs on this issue. As we know the Democrats gave up the idea of single payer without a fight. The administration has been on the defensive from the beginning and they continue to fight it out with members of their own party over just how much the health insurance companies will be allowed to get away with. I personally think the whole debate was handled badly by the administration. They gave up their best bargaining chip before the game even started. They have negotiated from a point of weakness and allowed the foes of reform to lead the debate. That being said, we might actually be on the verge of an historic first step in health coverage. It won't be everything that it's supposed to be, but it's a hell of a lot better than nothing. And as someone said, every great journey begins with a single step.

"My next issue is education. President Obama is an example of what a superior education can produce. Unfortunately, our public schools, are for the most part, incapable of producing such a person. We have allowed our public schools to fall into such a state of disrepair that practically every parent who can afford an alternative takes it. The teachers in our public schools are underpaid and overwhelmed. The facilities are crumbling and pushed to their limits. The textbooks are as outdated as the technology. We put programs in place to try and improve performance, but they are not adequately funded. No child left behind is a great idea, but if there is no follow through, then there are many who are left behind. The election of President Obama will give our children hope that they can become anything they want, but our public education system will give them their first taste of reality. Something must be done and done quickly. We are losing generations of kids to crime, to drug addiction, to hopelessness. Obama is in the best position of any President of modern times to address this situation. He has the ability to inspire, but more importantly, the children of this country need more than inspiration, they need a better system. The kids are willing to meet the system half way, but we cannot ask them to do it all themselves."

Literally nothing has been done. I haven't even heard the words "education reform" from the lips of a major player in the Obama administration. Having the President tell kids to stay in school is nice, but the problems that the kids have to deal with still remain. Why are spending trillions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan when we have all but ignored the education of our own children? What will it take until and administration takes public school education reform seriously? Why don't we make all of our elected Representatives have to send their children to public school? And not one of the magnet schools either. I think everyone elected to Congress, presidency or named to the cabinet should have to put their kids in one of the local schools in Washington DC. I'm sure that public education would get some attention then. I've asked this question about the health care debate before but, why don't our publicly elected officials care about the people who elected them? Is it so hard to ask them to actually attend to the needs of their constituents. I'm sure the Republicans and Democrats would have different approaches to reform, but if it affected their kids, at least they would have an approach. The lack of attention is shameful.

"The last issue for today is probably the most important and that is having an Executive branch that acts in accordance with and respects the Constitution...President Obama said in his inauguration speech that the choice between safety and our ideals is a false one. I can only hope that he will live up to that statement...It will be tempting to hold on to some of the measures that were put in place under the previous administration, but the President cannot allow us anything less than a complete repudiation of those methods and measures that are counter to our Constitution. This country was founded on the ideals of freedom and transparency, let us hope that we are seeing a return to what made us great."

Well, this hope went out the window pretty quickly. The Attorney General has huffed and puffed, but there are still no real investigations into the transgressions of the previous administration. If the President says that he wants to "look forward not backward" one more time, I might spontaneously combust. Some of the prisoners at Gitmo will actually get a trial, but some innocent detainees had to be sent to a distant island nation, because no one would have them, even though they had done nothing. There are still others at Gitmo (and at prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan) that will never see the light of day. We won't know who they are or what they supposedly did, but they will be detained (apparently in perpetuity) in our name. This administration hasn't quite been the open book that they said they would be and at times have been downright paranoid (like when they refused to release the names of people who had visited the White House). The air of secrecy that surrounded the Bush White House seems to have infected the Obama White House as well (having an active fight with the Fox "news" Network seems childish and the kind of thing the Bush administration would have been crucified for by those of us on the Left). I wrote an article back in April about what Constitutional rights actually remain, so I won't go over that ground again. Let's just suffice it to say that it hasn't gotten any better under this administration.

That's about it. One out of four. I guess at this pace, we might actually get some real change over four years. I'm generally kind of pessimistic by nature, but I'm still willing to give the Obama administration the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they have a master plan to tackle all the issues that matter to Progressives and Liberals alike. Perhaps we need to be more patient. Perhaps time will make all of this criticism seem silly. Perhaps, but it's hard to tell a starving man to wait his turn. We've been starving for so long, that I guess we may seem a little greedy. I can wait my turn, but I can't wait forever.

The Long Road

I'm tired. As I'm sure our regular readers (all 6 of you) have noticed, the pace of the posts here has slackened considerably. There a few reasons for that, but one of the biggest is just that I'm tired. I'm tired of beating my head against a wall to no effect. I'm tired of the nonsense that passes for political reporting these days (I think I might shoot myself if I am subjected to one more Sarah Palin story. Sarah Palin, really??? Who gives a sh*t what she's doing.). I'm tired of the lack of action by our government when literally thousands of people a year are dying due to lack of affordable health care I'm tired of pointing out the same issues over and over again. How many times can I bemoan the quagmire in Afghanistan? How many times can I complain about the ignorant people who apparently feel it's their lives work to deny the civil rights to their fellow Americans? How many examples of outright criminal behavior by our elected officials have to be shown before something is done? How many times does our government have to ignore the Constitution before the document becomes meaningless?

I haven't given up my belief that we can be a better country. I'm just disgusted with the pace of progress. Why do most of our politicians have to act like 5 year olds (screw you guys, I'm going home)? Why does political commentary have to devolve into name calling and attempted jokes (Beck, O'Reilly, Olberman, I'm talking to you). If our politicians don't take the future of the country seriously, then you would hope that at least the press would. You'd be wrong. Why are the NewsHour and Bill Moyer's Journal the only places to get an honest look at the issues? Why has politics devolved into entertainment? I'm tired of trying to search out a serious look at the issues. It's almost as if everyone treats this as one big game. I would like to remind them that peoples lives are at stake here, but what would be the point?

How much time will our supposed journalists and politicians spend on whether the President bowing to the Emperor of Japan was appropriate or not? How time will be spent on whether Sarah Palin is a viable candidate for President? How much time will be spent on arguing semantics and appearances as opposed to actual policies? How many times will "journalists" spend laughing at a joke they tell or a joke some else tells? How much time will they all spend trying to "out clever" each other?

All of it just wears me down. I'm tired of trying to talk about issues when the people who can actually do something about it appear to be so willing to avoid them. I'm sure I'll get back to writing soon, but trust me, at this point I'm not in much of a mood to continue to piss into the wind. It's a sad day when you come the realization that the Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on and that the politicians in this country don't seem to care. It's a sad day when journalism in this country has been lowered to the level of bad entertainment. It's a sad day when the people of this country can't get the news without a wink and a elbow. It's a sad day when the helpless, hungry and homeless are relegated to also ran status because they don't make good copy.

I'm tired. Very tired.

Crystal Persuasion

The folks over at Fox are beside themselves over the results in New Jersey and Virginia last night. They will be on the TV today talking about how this is a clear repudiation of the Obama agenda and how this bodes well for the GOP in 2010 and 2012. Of course they will forget to mention that the only election that might affect the Obama agenda went to the the Democrats.

NY-23 went to a Democratic candidate for the first time in over 150 years. The Republicans (Palin, Pawlenty, etc.) decided that their candidate wasn't conservative enough and decided to back the Conservative party candidate even though he didn't live in the district and didn't know anything about the district. The military base is one of the biggest employers in the district, but the Conservative party candidate didn't even know there was a military base there. The Republican leadership decided that there was no place in the party for a "moderate" Republican. They didn't care that their candidate was basically a carpet bagger. They only cared that he was a Tea Bagger.

The exit polls in New Jersey and Virginia show that a majority of those voters approve of the President. These races were decided by local issues. These are tough economic times and people do vote with their pocket books. We have a clear example of that from last November. In Virginia the Democrats have controlled the Governorship for the last eight years in which the state, along with the rest of the country, has swung from recession to boom times back to recession. The voters of the state decided that they wanted to try something else at the state level. They were not voting for or against the Obama agenda (I take that back. Of course some were voting against the Obama agenda, but they would do so in an election for dog catcher as well). The same is true of New Jersey.

The elections of 2010 will be a better barometer of what the country thinks of the President. Those elections will have a direct effect on his ability to push his agenda through. Health Care reform has to pass and the economy (read unemployment numbers) has to begin to show a real turnaround. If those things happen, the Democrats will do fairly well in next years elections. If they don't, then the Democratic majority in the House will be in jeopardy. The war in Afghanistan will have little effect because the Republicans are actually pushing for more troops, while the majority of the country has very little stomach for that.

As is the case in most elections, however, people vote with their pocketbooks. If the President can convince the majority of Americans that there is a light at the end of the tunnel and (to borrow a line from George Bush Sr.) to stay the course, the Democrats should be able to hold on to their margins in the House and Senate. If the Republicans can shape the debate to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of Democratic leadership then the Republicans may well find themselves back in control of Congress and with a much smaller minority in the Senate.

My biggest disappointment over the results of yesterdays elections was the fact that Maine made it 0-31 when same sex marriage initiatives face the voters. I have already written on this subject but each time it comes up it just makes my blood boil. Why do Republicans, who claim to be champions of individual liberty and less government intrusion in our lives, continue to revel in denying a basic human right to citizens of this country? Why would those who believe in "family values" deny people the right to start a family of their own? Why is it anybodies business if two consenting adults want to get married? And why have voters continually taken away a right that has been guaranteed by either the courts or state legislature? Why don't we just start repealing rights that we don't like? There's a justice of the peace in Louisiana who wouldn't mind repealing Loving v. Virgina. Perhaps the Civil Rights Act or Voting Rights Act should be repealed as well. I'm sure there are many that aren't particularly thrilled with the 24th amendment. Perhaps women shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a voting booth considering how fragile and emotional they are. This is all complete nonsense. I have no idea how a nation that prides itself on personal freedom can continue to treat a selected portion of it's citizens as if they are not worthy of the same rights and freedoms as everyone else. It's just plain shameful.

I have very conflicted feelings about Thomas Jefferson, but there is one thing cannot be disputed and that was his gift with words. I'll end this particular rant with one the most famous sentences in the English language. It was mainly the work of Jefferson (with some slight revisions from John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, to name two) and although the idea had been in print before, it had never been and probably has never been stated more eloquently and clearly. One of these days we'll live up to this, but unfortunately, it's not today. And I quote the good gentlemen from Virgina,

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot...

But honestly, I don't think that he should be denied the right to be an owner of an NFL team. Rush is constantly pushing the envelope in his commentary every day, but let's face it, he's basically an entertainer at this point. He has an audience to entertain and he does an amazing job of keeping their attention with just talk. I would hate to think that we've reached a point in this country when expressing your views, however unpopular, would mean that you no longer have the right to take part in a free market enterprise. I probably haven't agreed with anything I've heard Rush say for the past 20 years, but if he wants to own an NFL team, a NBA team, a MLB team or an NHL team, I say more power to him.

I think we on the left should be branded hypocrites if we said nothing on this matter. I don't like what Rush has to say, but damn it, he has every right to say it. Let's not start handing out scarlet letters to people we don't agree with. What should we deny Rush next? The right to buy a car dealership? The right to buy his groceries at Wal-Mart? And why should we just stop at Rush? Perhaps everyone on Fox News should have the same restrictions placed on them. I know Rush is a pretty vile person. I personally can't stand the guy, but I'm not willing to say what he should and shouldn't be able to do with his money.

I know this will probably be a pretty unpopular post, but I'm standing on principle here. Rush should be able to buy a football team if he wants one. Of course the players can refuse to play for him if they want to. The fans can refuse to show up to the games if they want to and the networks can refuse to cover the games if they want to.

It's a Snowe Day in D. C.

So the Finance Committee finally got a version of the health care bill approved. Well, hoo f'ing ray! We, meaning the American people, will now have the pleasure of having our the future of our health care system decided by one person. No, I'm not talking about the person the majority of Americans voted for last November. I'm talking about our new de facto President, Olympia Snowe. I do appreciate Senator Snowe breaking with her party and voting for some version of health care reform. What I do not appreciate is the fact that the bill coming out of the insurance company employee Max Baucus' committee, is without a doubt the weakest of the five bills in Congress.

It has become clear that because of the Snowe endorsement, the weakest of the bills is now the template for any agreement going forward. The Bacus bill is the only one of the five that does not include a public option. The Democrats, who in theory have enough votes to overcome a filibuster, will now bend over backwards to accommodate Senator Snowe. She will be a part of the group that works on merging the two Senate bills and at this point it looks like she will be the most important part. Do you think that a bill containing a public option will make it to the floor of the Senate when keeping the approval of Senator Snowe seems more important to the Democratic leadership than passing an effective bill?

I have no idea how we have come to this point. The last time I checked, the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. It seems almost unbelievable to me that the White House would be willing to throw the public option overboard (with no real alternative in sight) for this token appearance of bi-partisanship. Has bi-partisanship somehow replaced effectiveness as the key word for health care reform legislation? In the coming weeks, we will watch as Bacus and Harry Reid bend over backwards in order to placate Senator Snowe. No public option? Sure, Olympia, whatever you want. You want a much larger penalty on those who are too poor to actually afford the high priced insurance that they are now mandated to purchase? Sure. Anything you want. You want to actually make the Bush tax cuts permanent? Sure. We don't need the money anyway.

There can be only one President at a time, according to our Constitution. But I'm not sure that we don't now have two people who now have the power to veto a bill. Senator Snowe may indeed have more power than the guy in the White House, because she gets to veto the bill before it ever gets to his desk.

All Aboard

As the Democrats struggle with health care reform, I think it's a good time to remind ourselves why they seem to struggle to get meaningful legislation passed, even with control of the Congress and the White House. When the Republicans are in power, they band together to form a single voice. There are few dissenters and they push through their agenda with seemingly little debate from inside the party. The Democrats, however, end up looking like a model for the modern dysfunctional family. Are the Republicans more united than the Democrats? No doubt. Are the Republicans more effective at advancing their views? No doubt.

Why are the Republicans more effective than the Democrats? It's simple really. The Democrats try to incorporate many views under their banner, while the Republicans are basically tolerant of only one. Being a "conservative" means that you believe in God and the Bible. That you believe in a strong national defense above all else. That you believe in the 2nd amendment as an absolute. That you believe abortion is a sin. That you believe illegal immigrants (and frankly all immigrants of color) are the cause of many of the ills of society. That you believe that government has no place in your health care (as long as Medicare and VA benefits are tended to by some invisible force that is definitely not the government). These along with a few others are the tenants of the Republican cause. You either believe these things or you have no place in the party. When Colin Powell dared to admit that he was voting for Barack Obama, the right wing press attacked. Rush Limbaugh said that the only reason he was voting that way was because of skin color. Rush said that there was no place in the Republican Party for him.

That is the modern Republican Party. It is monolithic and at times monosyllabic. The Democrats are a "big tent" party. It is made up of a diverse coalition of views and beliefs. Some believe in God and the Bible, some believe that abortion is a sin, some have no love for immigrants and some even believe that government should have no place in their health care. The difference being that the Democrats do not try to expel people for those views or beliefs. The current uproar over the "Blue Dog" Democrats would have you believe differently, but unless one of those representatives were to declare himself or herself a Republican, they will still receive the majority of support of their party members against any opposition.

It does make the Democratic Party a whole lot messier and seemingly less effective, but you have to remember the legacy that the big party approach has left behind. From social security, to desegregation of the military, to the civil rights bill, to Medicare, the Democratic Party has been the driving force behind each of these landmark changes to our country. It was a struggle each time to get these things done. Arms had to be twisted, promises had to made and sometimes the rules had to be bent just a little in order to give the American people real change. But always remember which side of the aisle those changes came from.

I am a declared Independent who has been at times very frustrated with the pace of progress in Washington, D. C. At times I've thrown up my hands at the President's seeming lack of urgency. I've cursed the Blue Dogs and the Progressives. I've sworn off writing on this blog a time or two. I've written angry articles, I've called my Senators and Congressmen and demanded action. I have even said out loud that I wished the Democrats could be a little more like the Republicans. But with a calmer head I do realize that wishing for such a thing is more than foolhardy. It would be downright dangerous. Imagine a Congress in which we only had far right and far left fighting each other. We would see and endless string of leadership trying to dismantle what the other party did while in power. I long for the day when the Republican leadership will realize that a narrow vision is not necessarily a better vision. Until that day, we have the Democratic Party, warts and all, that still invites disparate views to share the stage.

I want meaningful health care reform. I want an end to the war in Afghanistan. I want public education to be a priority for this country again. I want an end to the abuse of the Constitution. I want a lot of things, but as I make my endless demands, I do occasionally stop and realize that there is only one party that's listening. It may not be perfect, it may not be the most effective, but it is the only one that genuinely values ideas that may not fit exactly into its platform. So I take today to celebrate the Democratic Party. Tomorrow may be a different story though.

Welcome to Lowball

The truth plain and simple is not something that is in doubt. You can argue the facts of any situation, but the truth is not open to debate. Why then do the major cable news network spend so much time arguing about the truth. There are no death panels in the health care legislation. That is the truth. How many times have we heard "debates" over the past couple of months about this very thing? President Obama was born in the United States. That is the fact and yet lunatics, including members of Congress, get to go on TV and argue this very point on a regular basis.

Do you know what wasn't the truth? Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and yet there was very little debate about that point when the President said it, even though it was later proved to be absolutely false. Are we now seeing a backlash from the press against its negligence to question what was coming out of the White House during the Bush administration? Is the press trying to make up for being asleep at the wheel?

Roman Polanski plead guilty to a charge of having sex with a minor which was the least serious of the six initial charges that arose from his drugging and then raping a thirteen year old girl (consensual or not, having sex with a drugged and drunk 13 year old is rape by definition). He served 45 days under psychiatric observation and then was to return to court for additional sentencing as deemed necessary by the court. Apparently under his plea deal, he was not supposed to serve any additional time. The Judge in the case, who undoubtedly committed some major misconduct decided that he didn't want to go by the agreed upon plea deal and so Roman Polanski fled the country after being released from psychiatric observation, but before appearing before the court again. He is therefore a fugitive from justice. That is the truth. He is a convicted felon who decided to flee the country when faced with more possible jail time. Yet the networks have committed air time to having people try and debate this issue. There is no issue. He pleaded guilty to a crime and then ran away before facing sentencing. Period. It does not matter that the now adult woman (who received a very handsome settlement from Polanski) wants the case dropped. It does not matter that those in Hollywood decided to give him an Academy Award for his direction of the movie "The Pianist". It does not matter that he made "Chinatown". It does not matter. The truth is that he is a fugitive from justice. Period. There is no debate about that, so why would you put two people on a major news network to debate the point.

When the news networks give equal weight to both the truth and whatever made up nonsense can be spewed against the truth, they play a major role in undermining that truth. When they make fun of the crackpots (like the insane woman who keeps on coming up with Kenyan birth certificates for Obama), they legitimize them by giving them air time and allowing their message to be heard by millions of others. It would be the same as if Chris Matthews were to allow a serious debate to take place between the people who believe the earth is flat and those who know that it is round. The argument is ridiculous on its face, but by giving them equal time you legitimize the ridiculous.

It is unfortunate indeed that the news organizations didn't do a better job of questioning the Bush administration when they had a chance, but to turn that mistake into a free for all maybe even more damaging to the American public. Isn't there someone in the morning production meetings of those major cable news networks who will stand up for the truth? I understand that the 24 hour news cycle forces each network to search for stories to cover, but there are so many worthy stories. The networks are not only guilty of laziness, they are guilty of trying to appeal tot he lowest common denominator. How many follow up stories have been done about the murders that took place during Hurricane Katrina that went unpunished. How many stories have been done about the fact that our public education system is falling apart? How many stories have been done about the fact that our Constitutional rights are under constant attack? I don't have any specific numbers but the answer is too damn few!

There are a hundred legitimate topics that the news organizations can point their cameras at and yet they chose to show us debates about the truth and present that as real news. When will this stop? When will our news organizations once again try to give us the news as news and not as entertainment. There are lots of network shows that I can watch or hell I can even rent a movie if I want to watch something for the sake of entertainment. I watch news networks because I want the news, not so that it can compete with the latest blockbuster from Steven Spielberg. Let's focus here people. The times demand more than we are being given. The stakes are too high for our only real inside view of the politicians, that are going to decide the fate of this country, to be looked upon as just another chance to entertain the lowest common denominator.

Into the Mystic

Rest in Peace, Teddy. The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.

Baby Steps

I'm going to admit defeat in the health care reform debate. I'm just going to get out ahead of the White House and Congress and admit that there is simply no middle ground in this debate. I'm not talking about the middle ground between the Democrats and Republicans. I mean there's no middle ground between Democrats and between the Houses of Congress. It is becoming more clear that congress may pass a bill with a public option, but the senate never will.

It's time for the White House to retreat to a defensible position. I believe that the debate got away from the President when he was unable to define exactly what health care reform would mean for most Americans. The genie is out of the bottle at this point. There is no way to get the sweeping change that was promised through the Congress this year. The Right has done a masterful job of bringing out all the hot button issues to bear on this debate, from abortion to illegal immigrants. The administration spends so much time trying to combat these bogus charges (which more than 50% of the public believe by the way) that it's message has gotten lost.

I have a plan though. I'm not sure that anyone will follow it, but I do think it might actually be more effective. Health reform this year should be limited to introducing new regulations for the Health insurance industry. The legislation should make it illegal for the insurance companies to either deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions, or drop someone once their application has been approved. The last regulation should be that the lifetime caps on coverage should be eliminated. That's it. No mandates for universal coverage, no mandates for employer coverage, no public option, no single payer. Just some common sense regulations that will make the insurance companies policies a lot more equitable. The Republicans will of course oppose the legislation on some far fetched ground, but it will be easy to explain to the people and all Democrats should be able to get on board with it.

If those major insurance regulations could be pushed through this year, the President could claim a major victory. It's is now pretty clear that health care reform has to be done in smaller steps. It is apparent that something as complicated as a major health care overhaul is simply too much for the majority of the people to understand and is subject to the most spurious of attacks. The people have to be force fed their medicine. Perhaps if we give it to them in small doses they'll never be aware of how much they've actually swallowed. I say the President takes on one health care initiative a year as part of his planned agenda. Explain one thing at a time, have a unified message, and that will make it all less scary for most Americans. Perhaps this is the approach that the White House has. Maybe they've been planning this all along. I know that the President is much smarter than me and so are the people working for him, so I would find it hard to believe if I'm the first to come up with this idea.

This effort cannot go to waste. Substantial insurance reform would be a giant step in the right direction. If you have been watching and listening to the President closely during his recent town hall meetings, he has subtly turned his mentions of reform from health care reform into health insurance reform. Could that have been his goal all along? Maybe. Or maybe I'm just dreaming.

Peace With Honour

For some reason Neville Chamberlain is on my mind today. This morning the Secretary of Health signaled that the White House is ready to wave the white flag on the public option for health care, which is in my opinion, the backbone of the proposed legislation. A month ago I wrote an article in which I expressed my frustration over what I perceived to be a lack of commitment on the part of the Obama administration to real health care reform. First of all the only way to truly control the spiraling cost of health care is with a single payer system. However the Democrats gave up that fight before they even started down the reform road. Since single payer had been so demonized during the Clinton attempt at health care reform, they decided that they would forgo it this time in order to try and keep the rhetoric to a minimum. So before this current attempt at health care reform had even begun, they had already conceded the best option to control costs and to make sure that everyone receives some level of coverage.

It seemed naive to me at the time to believe that by conceding this option it would lead to less vitriol from the opponents of real reform and events have proven this point. As I have said previously, the Republicans are not interested in bi-partisanship. Their only goal is to defeat the President's agenda. The Democrats continue to concede point after point (the provision to provide end of life counseling is, if you pardon the pun, dead) in the name of bi-partisanship when the Republicans have no intention of voting for a health care reform bill regardless of the number of concessions that are made. If a bill does receive solid bi-partisan support you can rest assured that calling it a "reform" bill would be massive misnomer. In a town hall meeting this week the President singled out Chuck Grassley as a Republican who was trying to find ways to get bi-partisan agreement on the reform bill. The next day Grassley told an audience that the government shouldn't be in the business of killing grandma.

Each concession that the Democrats make only serves to embolden the opposition. The question becomes, is our government in the business of protecting the private insurance companies or protecting the health and well being of it's own citizens? Each concession in the never ending chase for phantom Republican votes only takes us further and further away from true reform. The Democrats are going to have to pass this bill on their own. They now have to figure out whether they want to pass something truly historic and helpful to the citizens of this nation or whether they want the GREAT HEALTH CARE REFORM BILL OF 2009 to become just another footnote in the history of politics of usual in Washington D.C.

Sound and Fury

I wake everyday to the same nonsense over and over again. I have to listen to the opponents of health care make up claims about "death panels" and other extreme positions that have nothing to do with the proposed bill in Congress. I have to listen to people talk about how afraid they are of what is happening to their country and how we need to "take our country back". I have to listen to this supposed organic movement talk about how this country is on the road to socialism. I have to listen to senior citizens say that they want the government to keep its hands off their medicare. I have to listen to the right wing media talk about the 1st amendment when they spent the previous eight years calling anyone who opposed the President un-American, treasonous and worse. I have to listen to people compare our President to Adolf Hitler and the Democratic leadership to the Nazis. I have to listen to Glenn Beck appeal to his audience not to get violent over this protest and then joke about poisoning the Speaker of the House.

This is no longer a "debate" about health care reform. This becomes just another outlet for the Right to get out their talking points about the President. Could anyone with a brain actually believe that the Congress would pass a law that sets up "death panels"? Of course not, but why let that stop them. But if you keep shouting socialism! and fascism! and Hitler! and Nazi! long and loud enough, you may just get some people to pay attention. People who oppose the President not because of what he stands for, but because of who he is are very attuned to the buzz words of the campaign to defeat health care reform. After all, they don't want someone who wasn't even born in America to tell them what to do. And I won't even get into the fact of how corporations get citizens to work against their own self interest (that is a story for another day).

There is real anger in this country, but it's not about health care reform. I think the vast majority of people in this country would be in favor of a system that stops the insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Or stops the insurance companies from increasing rates if you happen to make a claim against your coverage. Or lowers costs so that even poor Americans can get coverage. Those are universally helpful measures. The real anger in this country comes from the person pushing the message. While the Clinton health reform push was defeated by misinformation, fear, and millions from the insurance companies, this attempt at health reform might be defeated by hate.

The opponents of this President "want their country back". Well, I hate to be the one to tell them this but "their country" doesn't exist anymore and that is a good thing. Our last election proved to me (and if you read this blog, you will know that I was extremely skeptical) that this country has indeed moved on in a way. The country that allowed the Republicans to dominate the Presidential elections for the previous 40 years, has indeed changed. The fallout from the Civil Rights Act that allowed the Republicans to tap into white, southern anger has finally run its course. I believe what we are seeing now are the death throes of that movement. The loud, angry, vitriolic death throes of a movement whose time has past.

These are indeed desperate times for those who long for the days when white equalled right. The influx of Hispanics into the mainstream of this country scares the hell out of them (John McCain's vote against the confirmation of Sonya Sotomayor was his first against ANY nominee to the supreme court). Having a Black President scares the hell out of them. Losing control scares the hell out them. There was a day when these things weren't possible. There was a day when they controlled the "debate" in this country. There was a day when fear of the known and unknown kept us from fulfilling our destiny as a nation. I can only hope that day has passed. The anger is real and loud, but at the end of the day it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.

Home Invasion

Henry Louis Gates was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct after getting into an argument with a police officer. This would be a major story given professor Gates' reputation. However the fact that he was arrested in his own home and that he is a friend of the sitting President of the United States makes it a media storm.

I have no doubt that Mr. Gates was extremely upset to be accosted in his own home by a police officer. I also have no doubt that his reaction was based not only on the current situation, but a lifetime of racial bias that he has had to face. Was his reaction more emotional than rational? Probably. Was he justified in reacting the way he did? Probably. I believe that if you are in your own home and have committed no crime, then the police have no right to treat you like a criminal. The police officer in this case will now get a lot of support from the Right. People like Rush Limbaugh are already rushing to give their views in favor of the officer. This once again proves the hypocrisy that comes from that side of the aisle. The Republicans are the first to talk about the sanctity of the home and an individuals right to privacy. If this had happened to George Will, and he would have been arrested by a black police officer in his home, the outrage from the Right would be palpable.

I have written about this topic before and I frankly hate to repeat myself, but unless you are a black male in this country, you have no idea what if feels like to be afraid to step outside your front door in fear what the very people who are supposed to protect you might bring to bear. I live in New York City and there is no neighborhood or group of people or time of night that causes me more fear than the sight of New York City police officer heading my way. I have first hand experience of being wrongly arrested and abused by the people that we call "New York's Finest". The funny thing is that I actually feel fortunate that I didn't have to grow up in Boston. In his early years, the comedian Chris Rock told a joke that went something like this, "I was in South Africa the other day...Or was it Boston". Boston is the town that reacted the most violently to forced busing in the seventies. Boston is the town that still has de facto segregation to this day. Boston is the town that being black is still a cause for alarm, unless you play for the Celtics or Red Sox.

Was race a factor in the arrest of Professor Gates? Of course it was. Would both men have acted differently if they were of the same race. Of course they would have. If Professor Gate were white would a 911 call even have been placed? debatable. The point here is that once a police officer shows up at the residence of an individual, what should be the threshold for then allowing that officer to arrest any person that lives there? I am not sure what the answer is to that question, but given the accounts of the proceedings given by both Professor Gates and the Officer, I am confident that the threshold was not breached. Would the Officer have arrested an elderly, semi-disabled, white Harvard professor? You can bet your last bowl of New England Clam Chowder that he would not have. The multi-cultural support for this officer from the Cambridge police department doesn't impress me. The New York Police department has never been held accountable for firing over 80 shots at an unarmed man and hitting him with over 40 in the doorway of his own apartment. And they were only held accountable for sodomizing an innocent man and causing life threatening internal injuries after one of dozens of officers decided that he couldn't maintain his silence anymore.

Actions speak much louder than words. If you think that race plays no part in any of this, I would just ask you to look at the growing movement that is questioning whether the President was born in this country. The absolutely only reason it's a question is because of his race. The language from the opposition is couched in the terms of "taking the country back". Glen Beck promotes gun ownership as a rational response to losing an election. I remember when 5 people on the Supreme Court decided who our next President was going to be. There were a lot of disappointed people, but I don't remember anyone of any national prominence promoting armed revolution. Why is it okay to question the legitimacy of a President who won his election with a decisive majority of the American people voting for him? He's black. It's as simple as that. Having a black President is a huge step forward for this country, but being black still means that there's a bullseye on your back.

Have Another Donut, You Fat Pig!

On Glen Beck's daily spewing of nonsense today he was attacking a government program that purchases food for food banks and soup kitchens. His initial argument was that the government was overspending for these products (which seems reasonable enough), but of course this poor excuse for a human being couldn't leave it at that. Responding to a comment by the by the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack that the program, "provides assistance to people who otherwise do not have access to food", Beck said, " Wow! I didn't know in America that we had people that didn't have access to food". I have no idea how someone can be so insulated that they wouldn't know that there are hundreds of thousands of people in this country who go to bed hungry every night. Does he think the homeless are just sitting on a pile of money? Does he think those people begging for money on the street are just doing that to kill time? People like him should be forced to live on the street and he can see just how much "access" he has to food. Perhaps it might help that fat tub of lard to lose some weight.

He has a book out now called "Common Sense". It reminds of a Saturday Night Live sketch in which there was a game show called "Common Knowledge". The answers to all the questions were not the right answers, but the one's that most people believed to be true. That is exactly what he is selling. He is selling lies to people who are too lazy to actually find the truth. It's a shame that "reporting" has reached these depths.

The Lion in Winter

The health care debate has reached a crossroad. The Republicans and the insurance industry are staging a full frontal assault on the reform bills now working their ways through the House and the Senate. They have decided that the President is vulnerable on this issue and have gone so far as to proclaim that this issue will be his Waterloo. The President to his credit has finally jumped into the fight with both guns blazing. His statements, which used to be very conciliatory toward the opposition, have become more pointed and emphatic. His staff is no longer talking about a bipartisan bill, they are now talking about the reality of having Democrats push this through on their own.

The President has to make the point that health care reform is not a policy question, it is a moral imperative. The health and well being of the citizens of this country is not something to bartered with or toyed with because of political differences. Republicans offer no alternative to the current proposal. Michael Steele went so far as to say that he doesn't even know what's in the bill. It is very clear that Obama's opponents don't have any strategy to fix the health care crisis, they only want to block anything that comes out of this administration.

The conservative Democrats have a different agenda. They are trying to placate the constituents in their right leaning states and districts. Their single issue is cost. They have to be sure that any program does not add to the bloated deficit. I do not believe that they are actually opposed to health care reform. Of course if they do not get on board at the end of the day, their opposition, regardless of how principled it is, will sink our only chance to give Americans a proper health care system. I have to believe that if push comes to shove, they will vote with the majority. If not to approve the bill then at least to end a republican attempt at a filibuster.

We, as a people, should have a right to decent health care. I have stated before that each elected official should be willing to do the right thing even though it may be a losing issue in their next election. We vote people into office not only to do our bidding, but also to do what is best. The people don't always know what is in their best interest. Just look at California. The fact that everything is up for a vote has led them to a budget crisis of biblical proportions. They need more revenue, but refuse to vote for any tax increases. "The People" want everything for nothing. "The People" cannot always be trusted to make the right decision. Our elected officials are not supposed to be as shortsighted as "The People". If their only concern is getting re-elected, then the needs of the people take a backseat to that goal.

It is a given that there are many in both houses of Congress who do not care if the majority of citizens of this country have adequate health care. They have been bought and paid for by the health insurance industry. That however should not stop the majority from doing what they know is right. I understand that no one wants to have to go to their constituents and tell them that health care reform is going to cost them money, but as with most of the great moral crusades of the last century, cost is not the important factor. We will of course save money if we are a healthier nation, but that is too forward looking for most in this country to understand. Sometimes “We the People” have to dragged kicking and screaming into doing the right thing. I can only hope that we have enough representatives who comprehend how significant this issue is and how monumental a difference it will make in the lives of all our citizens.

President Kennedy spoke of civil rights as a moral crisis. He tragically didn’t live long enough to see the eventual passage of the Civil Rights Bill. Critics at the time attacked the bill as government interference in private enterprise. They argued that the government has no place in dictating the actions of the private sector. They argued that we needed less government, not more. Time has proved these arguments wrong. His brother Ted Kennedy has made universal health care his life’s work. He has pushed for universal coverage since the early seventies. He has spoken about the fact that he and his family have always received the highest level of care. However, unlike some of his more callous fellow members of Congress (Senator Grassley had the nerve to offer this bit of advice as to how to get the same level of coverage that he enjoys, “get a government job”), he has always said that he wants all Americans to have access to that same level of care. As Kennedy battles brain cancer, he is doing all he can to lend his support to this most important of issues. It is his life’s work, it is his legacy. It is the moral imperative of our time. Let us hope that we are up to the challenge and I believe that time will treat the opponents of health care as well as it has treated the opponents of the Civil Rights Bill.

The Most Dangerous Person in America

Sarah Palin announced her resignation as Governor of Alaska in a rambling and unfocused press conference last Friday. In fact, she made Mark Sanford seem like the epitome of coherence. Those on the left were quick to proclaim that this was the death knell for Mrs. Palin as a serious candidate for President in 2012. Those on the Right were quick to point out that she is now free from the burden of running a state and can now make even more appearances where she can spread her message.

If we were living in "normal" times, those hopeful thinkers on the left may indeed be right, but we are not living in normal times. The Republican party has been reduced to its core elements. Social conservatives now dominate the base of the party and those are the very people who find Sarah Palin irresistible. We must also remember that over 58 million people voted for her in the last election. I understand that she was not at the top of the ticket, but she was only a heartbeat away from the top job which would have been held by a 73 year old, 2 time cancer survivor.

Sarah Palin is the most ill-prepared person proposed for national office that I have ever seen. She has no understanding of the Constitution (illustrated by her constant misstatement of what the 1st Amendment means), she couldn't explain what Conservatism is if you spotted her Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan and she is dead set against learning what she doesn't know. That last point is what makes her so dangerous. Anybody with the lack of understanding of national and international issues that she has demonstrated and with the family issues that were forced to be played out on a national stage, would have declined the offer to join the McCain ticket. However her personal ambition outweighs any family obligation or reasonable action.

Despite all her shortcomings, the base of Republican party has anointed her as the savior of the party. Republican pundits have even compared her to Richard Nixon. Nixon uttered the famous, "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore", after losing to Pat Brown in the California Governor's race. Nixon, of course, returned 6 years later to become a two term President. However comparing Richard Nixon to Sarah Palin is like comparing an Indy race car to a scooter. At the time that Richard Nixon made his famous concession, he had been a 2 term Congressman, a Senator, a two term Vice President and had lost a closely contested and controversial election for President. For all his shortcomings, I don't think that there is anyone who would question his intelligence or his skill as a politician and statesman. Sarah Palin, a first term Governor of Alaska, was as recently as 4 years ago, voted mayor of a town with approximately 600 votes. The comparison is ridiculous on its face and becomes even more ridiculous when you compare the two. She has also been compared to the great communicator himself, Ronald Reagan. Of course Reagan had become politically aware as part of the Conservative movement. He was schooled by the likes of Barry Goldwater himself and cut his teeth as Governor of California. Ronald Reagan's intellect will never be confused with Richard Nixon's, however he knew what he stood for.

Sarah Palin doesn't know what she stands for. Her speeches contain no details, no policies, no directions for how she intends to "make America a better place for all Americans". She simply spews talking points and applause lines. Her ego is so large that she would probably never allow someone around her who doesn't agree with everything she says, or at least they wouldn't be around her for long. I have nightmares about this woman being in charge of our international policy. Can you imagine this woman as our representative around the world? Can you imagine her having a serious discussion with the leaders of the rest of the world? George Bush at least had the awareness to understand that he needed smart people around him. They were evil for the most part, but they were undoubtedly very intelligent. I don't think Bush ever had a problem with not being the smartest guy in the room.

Sarah Palin, almost unbelievably, thinks that she is the smartest person in any room that she's in. She would surround herself with people who would be unwilling or unable to disagree with her on any topic. It would be an absolute disaster. I honestly don't understand how anyone could hope for this to come to pass. There are smart people on the right, who for unknown reasons support Sarah Palin. It could be desperation, it could be... actually there is no other reason. It has to be desperation. I hope that in the years before the next Presidential election, the Republicans come up with an alternative. I fear, however, that wishful thinking will not be enough to get rid of the spectre that is Sarah Palin. She will be with us for the foreseeable future. Unless there's a scandal out there that we don't know about. That might be more wishful thinking I'm afraid.