Know Your Enemy: What We've Learned Since The Mid-Terms

We may not know for some time what the true results of this third straight "change" election are to be. There are likely to be twists and turns and occasional surprises. However, what we have learned is that the mid-term victories by the Republicans have clearly emboldened them.

While most polling data has supported the notion that no one is in love with Republicans (they in fact, have a lower favorability rating than the Democrats), and John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Marco Rubio have all spoken with some humility since their big night on November 3rd, the truth is, they have no intention of delivering on the compromise that the majority of voters are hoping for.

Aside from Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell's gaffe stating that his main priority is to make Barack Obama a "one-term President," a closer look at their recent policy positions showcase a clear desire to be divisive on every issue regardless of public polling or even common sense.

To wit:

--In the face of all evidence to the contrary, Republicans want to extend tax cuts to rich people because it will stimulate growth and create jobs. Really? These tax cuts have been in place for seven plus years, and how has that worked out for us so far? Massive job losses, a recession, and the near collapse of the economic system as we know it. Yeah, it's worked out great. Despite all their talk of wanting to reduce the deficit, they don't even have a plan to pay for the $700 billion revenue loss that would created by the extension of tax cuts to the wealthy. They are actually on record as saying "the tax cuts will pay for themselves." What planet have they been living on the last several years?

--So, the rich should get a massive tax cut, but what about the nearly 10% of Americans that don't have a job? In an effort to fast track an extension of unemployment benefits that are set to expire on November 30th for millions of Americans, House Republicans blocked the measure from going forward. Happy Thanksgiving and Merry Christmas to you, you lazy, out of work bastards! The cost of extending these benefits is about $30 billion. Or about 4% of what tax cuts for the rich would would run us. It's important to note that unemployment benefits are insurance, not just a giveaway. Most of the folks on the unemployment rolls have paid into this fund and now they face being cut off by these Grinchy Republicans. And here's the other thing, extending unemployment benefits is far more stimulative to the economy than tax cuts for rich folk. Why? Because the unemployed spend the money, they don't sit on it. But why let facts get in the way of a little class warfare?

--In another move that strains credulity, last week Republicans successfully filibustered the Paycheck Fairness Act that would allow women to seek unlimited punitive and compensatory damages from companies that display gender bias when it comes to equal pay for an equal day's work. In a country where women still only earn 70% of what a man does, this would seem to be an easy sell. Well, if you believe that then you'd be wrong. In a stunning rebuke of fairness, Republicans in the Senate shot down the bill. Even the two ladies from Maine (Collins and Snowe) voted against bringing the measure forward, arguing that it would be "bad for business." Fairness is bad for business? They should be ashamed of themselves.

--The continual fight over ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell took an interesting turn last week when the preliminary results of a Pentagon study revealed that at least 70% of our men and women in uniform do not believe that allowing gays to serve openly in the military would be detrimental to morale or readiness. A recent poll released by CNN found that 78% of all Americans favor the repeal of DADT as well, So, if the soldiers are ok with it, and the public is ok with it--and by large margins--shouldn't this be a slam dunk? Wrong again, boyo.

Taking the lead for the Republican argument against the repeal is Arizona Senator, John McCain. Or, at least someone who looks and sounds an awful lot like John McCain, but seems to share no resemblance to the formerly honorable public servant that gave the W. a run for his electoral money in 2000. That John McCain has disappeared since giving up all of his standards in a missionary zeal to become President in 2008. McCain once said that if military brass came out in favor of repeal, then he would support it. After Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen did just that, McCain said we needed a study to reflect the concerns of the troops. Now that we have the early returns of said survey, McCain suggested we needed another study to reflect the concerns of the troops. Say what? Is that not exactly what the recent survey does? Interestingly, McCain's own wife, Cindy shot a recently released PSA that favored the repeal and his own very politically active daughter, Meghan, is against DADT as well. Which must make for some very tense dinner table discussions. Of course, Cindy recently said that she supports her husband's position after much was made of her anti-DADT PSA, so clearly, her husband isn't the only one in the family lost in the wilderness of contradictory opinion.

--While Republicans have often lagged behind Democrats in terms of the public trust on issues like the environment and the economy, they have typically held an advantage over the left when it comes to national security. Which makes their current opposition to the ratification of the new START treaty negotiated with Russia completely mystifying.

The original Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty was proposed by President Reagan and eventually signed by the first President Bush in 1991 (both Republicans, if you're scoring at home). The treaty requires a reduction in nuclear forces by both countries and allows for inspections of each others arsenal to ensure that the treaty was being implemented appropriately. Reagan referred to this as "Trust, but verify." By all reasonable accounts, the treaty has been a tremendous success. Not only has it strengthened our relationship with a former enemy, but it has enhanced our credibility on the national stage when it comes to pushing other countries to reduce and protect their nukes.

However, the original START treaty expired last year. And considering that our relationship with Russia has been somewhat chillier over recent years, the successful negotiation of the continuation of START should be seen as a major success for our nation. But, not so fast say the Republicans. Lead by the other Senator from Arizona (just secede already, will you?), John Kyl, Republicans are pushing for a slow down of that ratification into the new congress of next year when it will clearly be more difficult to get the 2/3 majority required for passage. Why? Because handing Obama a success is worse than enhancing our national security. Let's be clear, this treaty is about more than just Russia. We are currently trying to get Russia to put pressure on Iran to stop their efforts to enrich uranium for the purpose of building themselves into a nuclear power. And that's just the immediate concern. If Republicans can't get behind a measure once proposed and implemented by their own party to better secure nuclear weapons and increase our bargaining position in the Middle East, then what the hell can they get behind?

So, let's recap. The current Republicans in congress are for rich people, corporations, gender and sexual orientation discrimination, cutting off benefits for everyday Americans, and against national security. And here's the scary part, in a couple of months, there's going to be more of them trolling the halls of congress.

It has often been said that "In a democracy, we get the government we deserve." Well, if this is what we deserve, then the hell with what that says about our politicians, what does it say about the people who elected these clowns?

I think it means, we have met the enemy and he is us.

Sumo-Pop
November 17, 2010