And the Winner is...

Here's the only winner in today's health care debate:

Why We Fight

We fight because "...in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope". We fight because senior citizens should have not have to chose between food and medicine. We fight because American Individualism is not an open invitation to social Darwinism. We fight because Gay and Lesbian are not dirty words. We fight because we believe that all men are created equal. We fight because we believe that people should be judged by the content of their character. We fight because having tens of thousands of people die each year because of a lack of affordable health care is morally unacceptable. We fight because having thousands of children go hungry in the richest nation on the planet is morally reprehensible. We fight because every child deserves access to an education that will prepare them to compete in the global economy. We fight because torture committed in our name is still torture. We fight because everyone should have the right to marry who they chose. We fight because we only have one planet. We fight because the status quo is unacceptable. We fight because a lie repeated often enough must not be permitted to become the truth. We fight because women deserve to paid the same as men. We fight because our veterans deserve to be treated with respect they have earned. We fight because the expenditure for the Iraq war could have paid for health care for every man, woman and child in the country who cannot afford it. We fight because the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. We fight because the forces massed against us never take a day off. We fight because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. We fight because as FDR put it, at the height of the Depression,

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of the those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little".

That is why we fight. We fight because we must.

May Tomorrow Be a Better Day

There's comes a time when you have to face that fact that you've come to the end. I have been contemplating this particular thought for the past 6 months or so. I just don't have anything else constructive to add to the political dialogue among the great group of bloggers that we have gotten to know over the past couple of years, so I think it's time for me to call it a day. I feel like I've said all I have to say. I've gone back and read some of the stuff I wrote during the past couple of years and I realize that as time has gone on, I've become less focused and less effective at making a coherent point. As SJ stated in his recent post, the quality of writing among the blogs I regularly read is outstanding. I certainly feel like there's nothing I could say that couldn't be said equally well or better by a whole host of great writers. You guys are all great (and I won't make the mistake of trying to list you all, but you know who you are)and I would just say, keep on doing what you're doing. As for me, I'll probably spend some time over at my long ignored sports blog. The blog will still be here. Hopefully SJ will continue to add articles from time to time but if not, at least the links will point people in the right direction.

So with more of a whimper than a bang, I wish you all a fond farewell and as Kasey Kasem always says, "keep your feet on the ground and keep reaching for the stars".

Tea Time

Tom Tancredo, former Congressman from Colorado, opened the Tea Party convention by attacking not only the President, but the current system that allowed Barack Obama to be voted into office in the first place. Some choice quotes from his "speech":

“people who could not even spell the word ‘vote’, or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House. His name is Barack Hussein Obama.”

“the cult of multiculturalism, aided by leftists, liberals all over who don’t have the same idea about America as we do.”

“we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country.”

This is the "keynote address" for the Tea Party convention. The Tea Party movement, which was started to protest the growth of the Federal Government and a perceived lack of response from elected officials, has devolved into a home for the disgruntled and disenchanted of all stripes. I would ask those who are asking for “their country back”, to define exactly what that means. I do believe that there are people who initially joined the TP movement out of a sincere concern for they viewed as a lack of response from leadership. The movement was quickly taken over by those who saw it as a great way to cover their “Fear of a Black Planet” (to quote Public Enemy). Tancredo is obviously making it perfectly clear what he means. In his America, those who don’t look like him are not welcome in the political discussion. In his America, the President will always be a White, protestant male. In his America, people of color know their place. Unfortunately for him (and fortunately for the rest of us), that country doesn’t exist anymore and we are all the better for it.

I honestly believe that there is reason to think that our elected officials have lost touch with the people they are supposed to represent. I believe that there is an argument to made about the size and scope of government as well. However belonging to an organization that is rapidly taken over by bigots looking for cover to attack the very diversity that has made this country what it is, does not seem like the best way to get a point across. As for Tancredo, people like him will always look for an audience to try and spread their particular brand of hate. We can only hope that as time goes on, the audience for this particular brand of “political speech” gets smaller and smaller.

Rose Colored Glasses

Image via WikipediaA poll was done by Research 200 for Daily Kos that asked Republicans some questions about the president (thanks to TomCat for the info). The results are to be expected from the members of the losing party in a historically bitter environment of partisan politics. I can also imagine that the numbers would have looked very similar if those questions (slightly altered) would have been asked of Democrats four years ago during the second Bush administration. I'll illustrate the point below the actual questions.

Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 1/20-31. Self-identified Republicans. MoE 2% (No trend lines)

OBAMA and AMERICA

Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not?

Yes 39; No 32; Not Sure 29

Should GWB be impeached?
The numbers from Dems would have been fairly high. Now I thought he should have been impeached for cause, but those on the right would certainly not agree.

Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?

Yes 63; No 21; Not Sure 16

Do you think that GWB is trying to a establish a plutocracy?
Not quite the same as the socialist question and actually requires some intelligence, but once again you can see my point on what the Dems would have said.


Do you believe ACORN stole the 2008 election?
Yes 21; No 24; Not Sure 55

Do you believe that the Republicans stole the election by using dirty tricks in Ohio?
Much like the ACORN question, I think that the numbers would reflect the frustration of losing an election and trying to find someone or something to blame it on.

Do you believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama?

Yes 53; No 14; Not Sure 33

Is John Edwards more qualified to be President than GWB?
I'm using John Kerry's VP candidate as a substitute for Palin, but you get the point. Once again the numbers would probably have matched the numbers in the current poll. Obvioulsly I'm talking about Edwards before the whole "I fathered a child with another woman and tried to get one my friends to take the blame by offering him money so that my political career wouldn't be ruined" fiasco.

Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people?

Yes 31; No 36; Not Sure 33

Do you believe that GWB is a racist who hates Black people?

Certainly in the aftermath of Katrina, there was a sentiment that GWB certainly had no love for those who were not in his social strata. I don't think the number would have been quite as high for this one, but certainly there was a feeling that GWB didn't care as much about the less fortunate in America

It's clear that there is a deep divide in this country, but I don't think that the divide is any worse than it was during the Bush years. The race of the President makes it easier for some to cast aspersions on his motives and his qualifications, but in the end I don't think that the numbers would have been much different if Hillary Clinton would have won the election. Democrats hated GWB. Republicans hate President Obama. It's that simple. If this poll would have been published when GWB was President, the Right would have said that it showed just how out of touch the Dems are. The Left and Right in this country are absolutely sure that they are correct in their assessment of the country, that any opposing views look absolutely crazy to them. I'm not writing to justify the numbers in this poll or to say that I agree with any of them (which of course I don't), but they have to viewed in context.

The point is that we have to remember how we on the Left felt when GWB was in office. We were absolutely sure in our convictions that he had harmed the country and that certainly his first election was illegitimate. Those on the Right disagreed. Those of us on the Left felt that we had the law and the Constitution on our side. Those on the Right disagreed. Those of us on the Left were called loons, crazies, anarchists, communists or worse by those on the Right. My point is that a little perspective is needed now that the situations have been reversed. Everything is colored by perspective. Now I happen to think that those of us on the Left were correct in our assessment of the Bush administration, but you'd be hard pressed to find a Republican who agrees. The numbers in this poll may appear to "crazy" to those of us on the Left, but then crazy is in the eye of the beholder(or the party in power at the time ).