Oh, where to begin? I suppose I could run off a litany of bizarre, foolish, or simply incorrect statements by the twisted sisters of the Tea Party, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.
I could go on about Palin's inability to answer such trick questions as "what do you read?" or "what Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?" I could also speak of her effort to expand the Webster's Dictionary by her creation of the word (not really) "refudiate." Then there's her ability to "see Russia from her house." Miss Alaska's Palinisms have become the stuff of legend. I mean, if destroying the English language and speaking in an incomprehensible manner can be considered legendary.
For a while, it seemed that Sarah had the Tower of Babel all to herself. Not anymore. Republican House Representative from Minnesota, Michele Bachmann has now laid claim to Sarah's intellectual lightweight crown. To be clear, it's not as if Bachmann hasn't made her share of bizarre statements over the years. Here is a small sample:
"There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design."
"If we took away the minimum wage--if conceivably it was gone--we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level."
"Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas."
"I just take the Bible for what it is, I guess, and recognize that I am not a scientist, not trained to be a scientist. I'm not a deep thinker on all of this. I wish I was. I wish I was more knowledgeable, but I'm not a scientist."
No Michele, you are not a scientist. But you are on the House Intelligence Committee. Which aside from being an example of irony in its purest form, also means we can't ignore you as easily as before.
In fact, it's hard to ignore either of them now that they are the twin towers of the Tea Party. Not just because of the significance of that grass roots movement, but also for the sheer entertainment value.
Let's just look at the last couple of weeks.
After the awful shooting of Democratic House member Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona, Palin came under significant scrutiny for her previous use of inflammatory rhetoric and in particular, her display of cross hairs over targeted districts (including Giffords') in a graphic on her web site. While this criticism was to some degree unfair (there is no evidence that the shooter was inspired by Palin), it was sharp and pointed in discussing the irresponsible and uncivil nature of Palin's behavior.
So, having been given an opportunity to respond, did Mrs. Palin show any contrition? Did she admit to at least getting a little overheated at times? Not our Sarah. Hell no, she doubled down by using the phrase "blood libel" in referring to the media's harsh treatment of her. Aside from the fact that she took a national tragedy and made it all about her, the use of the term "blood libel" was taken as a very particular offense by the Jewish population. My suspicion is that she did not know that the term was originally used to blame Jews for the death of Christ and over the years has been a rallying cry for anti-Semites in rationalizing their deliberately unfair treatment of the followers of the Torah. I mean, what are the odds she would know? As former campaign advisor to John McCain, Steve Schmidt, once said as he walked away from interviewing her after she had been selected to run as VP, "She doesn't know anything."
Not to be outdone, speaking in Iowa on January 24th, Bachmann said this: "the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States....Men like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country." There are so many things wrong with this comment that it is hard to know where to start. First off, John Quincy Adams was not a founder or a forefather. He was the son of John Adams who was indeed both of those things. Nor was Abraham Lincoln who actually signed into law the 13th amendment which outlawed slavery in 1864. Or, 88 years after the Declaration of Independence and 16 years after the death of one, John Quincy Adams. Does she understand what a founder is? You know, the one that found?
By her very loose definition, I'm not so sure that Ronald Reagan wouldn't qualify.
Ah, but Mrs. Bachmann wasn't done yet. In a truly bizarre Tea Party sponsored response to President Obama's State of the Union address, a raccoon eyed Bachmann looked into the wrong camera, made several mis-statements about the deficit and mispronounced Iwo Jima in such a way that I am convinced she had never heard of the place prior to her presentation.
Bachmann's performance effectively undercut the official Republican response delivered by House Representative from Wisconsin, Paul Ryan. And let me say this about Ryan, I agree with him on almost nothing. Among his ideas is the belief that Social Security should be privatized, and Medicare should be replaced with a coupon. That being said, Ryan is a serious individual who delivered a better than average response to the President. Unfortunately for the Republican Party, due to Mrs. Bachmann, no one is talking about Mr. Ryan.
Of course, all this focus on Mrs. Bachmann had to be chipping away at Mrs. Palin, who is nothing if not competetive. So, on Wednesday night, Mrs. Palin offered up her own response to the State of the Union. In her interview on FOX (naturally) with Greta Van Susteren, she referred to President Obama's statement that we as a nation are at our "Sputnik moment" as it relates to our standing in the world, as "one of those WTF moments." To see a national figure with presumed presidential aspirations to use a profane acronym to describe the speech of the President was one thing. However, what followed was something else altogether.
Here is the full quote:
"That was another one of those WTF moments, when he so often repeated this Sputnik moment that he would aspire Americans to celebrate. And he needs to remember that what happened back then with the former communist USSR and their victory in that race to space, yes, they won, but they also incurred so much debt at the time that it resulted in the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union."
So, let's get this straight, she thinks the Soviet Union won the space race? Does she not know who landed on the moon? You know, "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind?" And that's not the only thing wrong with this statement. The Russian Sputnik spacecraft went into orbit in 1957. The Soviet Union fell in 1991. Their space program had little if anything to do with their demise. The actual collapse of the Soviet Union was due to a variety of economic and political issues, not the least of which was the nuclear arms race which sorely taxed the nation's treasure. A rocket ship from 1957 was the least of their concerns.
It's hard to imagine that mainstream Republicans are happy with these two. But what can they really do about it? The Tea Party has become the base of the Republican party, and you cannot win a Republican primary without your base. So, as a Republican, you criticize either of these two at your own peril.
Perhaps the best that the GOP can hope for is that they start going after each other. Which is entirely conceivable. Both are camera and microphone hounds--even if they require a controlled (see FOX) environment. When it comes to the leader of the soul of the Tea Party, I've got a pretty strong feeling that there can only be one.
While both Palin and Bachmann are prone to extraordinary gaffes, they are not exactly the same. There is an underlying meanness to Palin that I have yet to see in Bachmann. A nastiness that underscores her nickname, "The Barracuda." Whereas Bachmann is a genuine wackadoodle. As one local politician (who shall remain nameless) confided in me, "she really believes that the Martians are coming."
So this is the choice before the Tea Party, and to a degree the GOP as well. The Tea Party has to decide who they like more, and the GOP has to decide who hurts them less. The crazy person who knows nothing, or the mean person who knows nothing.
Because, the truth is, neither of these messengers can be fixed. Both are guilty of profound levels of ignorance. Of which, there are two kinds. The regular sort, and the willful sort. The first kind can be fixed. The second kind cannot.
They don't have the first kind.
Sumo-Pop
January, 29, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Charlton Heston's Cold, Dead Hands
"For the next six months, candidate and Vice President Al Gore is going to smear you as the enemy. He will slander you as gun-toting, knuckle-dragging, bloodthirsty maniacs who stand in the way of a safer America. Will you remain silent? I will not remain silent. If we are going to stop this, then it is vital to every law-abiding gun owner in America to register to vote and show up at the polls on election day. So, as we set out this year to defeat the divisive forces that would take freedom away, I want to say those fighting words for everyone within the sound of my voice to hear and to heed, and especially for you, Mr. Gore: 'From my cold, dead hands!'--Charlton Heston, May 20th, 2000 at the 129th NRA Convention in Charlotte, NC
And that was pretty much the final word on gun control for the next decade. After Al Gore "lost" the election, and particularly his home state of Tennessee, no major national Democrat has even dared to broach the subject.
This wasn't always the case. In 1994, then President Clinton signed into law the Assault Weapons Ban, outlawing the sale or purchase of certain semi-automatic weapons. After the horror of Columbine, their was much discussion of further tightening the restrictions around guns that were not meant for hunting or reasonable protection. However, once Gore went down to "defeat" to George W. Bush, the Democratic Party pretty much gave up on the issue.
Hell, despite the support of several national police organizations and the fact that President Bush said he would sign a bill into law if the congress approved it, an attempted extension in 2004 of the Assault Weapons Ban went down to defeat in the Senate by a vote of 8 to 90. Which means a whole helluva lot of Democrats went along with the Republican majority.
Now, after the awful events in Tucson earlier this month, come the first semi-serious discussion of gun laws in years. I say semi-serious, not because those doing the discussing aren't genuine. No. I say semi-serious because "everybody knows this is nowhere," to quote Neil Young.
This well meaning effort is so hopeless, that you are barely even hearing a peep out of the NRA. Why? Because they don't need to peep. They have the Republican dominated House in their pocket, and the Democratic majority in the Senate so brow-beaten and fear-ridden that they would probably rather take a swipe at single-payer than to discuss the expanding of even the most marginal of gun restrictions.
One of the few courageous Democrats to take up the issue is House Representative from New York, Carolyn McCarthy, who shortly after the assault in Tucson that left six dead and badly injured her colleague, Gabrielle Giffords, announced her intention to introduce a bill that would outlaw high capacity magazines like the one used by the shooter in said incident. It should be understood, that Ms. McCarthy comes by her position through brutal experience. In 1993, her husband was murdered and her son badly injured when a man named Colin Ferguson opened fire inside of a Long Island commuter train.
Still, despite her good and sensible intentions, no one thinks her bill will ever even make it to the floor of the Republican controlled House.
As soon as anyone even utters the thought of any type of gun restrictions, folks (typically) on the right start screaming about the Constitution, and freedom, and, well, you know the rest.
But let's get a few things straight here. When our forefathers wrote the second amendment stating our right to bare arms, they owned muskets. If you ever want to see how comparably ineffectual these weapons were compared to modern arms, then go to a Revolutionary war reenactment. Or, just rent Last Of The Mohicans (Daniel Day-Lewis version, naturally). Back in the 18th century, if your opponent took a shot at you and missed, you could scour the ground for a decent stone, walk a couple-a-hundred feet and beat him to death with it in the time it would take him to reload.
And as far as the freedom part, we do--believe it or not--have some sensible restrictions on weaponry in this country. Like you can't own a bazooka or a tank. But if you listen to gun rights advocates, you would swear that McCarthy's bill that would limit magazine capacity to 10 bullets, was the beginnings of a Bolshevik plot. In fact, the NRA actually fought for the rights of people on the "no fly" list to be able to purchase guns. Yeah, you heard that right. They stood up for people who were on the terrorist watch list.
Many of these folk have the dubious idea that more guns equals less crime. Well, this is one extremely well armed country, and the statistics do not bare out their position. A recent statistical analysis ranked the United States 9th out of 38 countries when it came to gun violence. Who beat us? Countries like Mexico, Brazil, and Northern Ireland. Two countries with very high poverty rates and one with centuries of political and religious based acrimony.
Not one first world country had a higher murder per capita rate than us.
So why do so many of us think that if the citizenry were well armed (which it is), we would have less crime? A lot of it has to do with the fantasy. The idea that well, if I had been there with my glock I woulda took that sucker out. First off, that almost never happens. Most people when they hear guns shots don't turn into Gregory Peck and The Guns Of The Navarone. Most people run in the opposite direction. Having a gun does not make you an action hero. It makes you a guy with a gun. That's all.
If you don't believe me, let's take a look at the state with perhaps the most lax gun laws in the union, Arizona. How lax are their gun laws? Well, here are some examples:
In the state of Arizona you do not need a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
You do not need a permit to purchase a handgun.
You do not need to register your handgun.
You do not need a license for your handgun.
You can carry a gun almost anywhere in the state, excepting doctor's offices and private businesses. But you can carry one into government buildings and even the state capitol. Anyone ever heard of Harvey Milk?
You can carry a gun into a bar. Although, you are not allowed to drink alcohol if you do. Which is fascinating to me. For one, why do people go to bars? And for two, who's responsible for making sure that you don't have a gun before you are served? Must the barkeep violate your rights by performing a "pat down?"
They even have a current proposal that would allow students and teachers to bring guns to school. Because what bad thing could happen with a well armed student body? I am willing to bet that certain pistol packing students would see their grades go up. "Oh, I disagree Professor. I think I deserve an 'A.'" Click-click.
The funny thing is, with all this lack of restriction, you might think that Arizona would be the first state that gun rights advocates would bring up when positing the more guns equals less crime argument. But you won't hear that. You won't hear that because Arizona has the 5th highest rate of firearm violence in the nation.
And let me add one more factoid to blow this argument all to hell. When that nutter walked up to congresswoman Giffords and shot her in the face, you know who stopped him after he blasted off 31 rounds and stopped to reload? Two senior citizens and a guy with a folding chair. None of them brandished a firearm. So, in a state with some of the most lenient gun laws in existence, where was our super hero to come in and save us with two guns blazing like he fell off of the silver screen of a John Woo movie? Ah, yes, that's right. They were in the movies.
The subject of gun control is where common sense goes to die. Any suggestion of restriction turns into a "slippery slope" argument about any limitation leading to ultimate limitation. And no statistics, no evidence, or any reason will be considered under any circumstances.
Next Tuesday, President Obama will deliver his third state of the union address. I expect his speech to lean heavily on the economy, civility, and I'm sure Congresswoman Giffords will get her well deserved tribute. But I do not expect him to touch--no matter how lightly--on the subject of gun control. Because he understands the same thing the rest of us do.
Everybody knows this is nowhere.
Sumo-Pop
January 22, 2011
And that was pretty much the final word on gun control for the next decade. After Al Gore "lost" the election, and particularly his home state of Tennessee, no major national Democrat has even dared to broach the subject.
This wasn't always the case. In 1994, then President Clinton signed into law the Assault Weapons Ban, outlawing the sale or purchase of certain semi-automatic weapons. After the horror of Columbine, their was much discussion of further tightening the restrictions around guns that were not meant for hunting or reasonable protection. However, once Gore went down to "defeat" to George W. Bush, the Democratic Party pretty much gave up on the issue.
Hell, despite the support of several national police organizations and the fact that President Bush said he would sign a bill into law if the congress approved it, an attempted extension in 2004 of the Assault Weapons Ban went down to defeat in the Senate by a vote of 8 to 90. Which means a whole helluva lot of Democrats went along with the Republican majority.
Now, after the awful events in Tucson earlier this month, come the first semi-serious discussion of gun laws in years. I say semi-serious, not because those doing the discussing aren't genuine. No. I say semi-serious because "everybody knows this is nowhere," to quote Neil Young.
This well meaning effort is so hopeless, that you are barely even hearing a peep out of the NRA. Why? Because they don't need to peep. They have the Republican dominated House in their pocket, and the Democratic majority in the Senate so brow-beaten and fear-ridden that they would probably rather take a swipe at single-payer than to discuss the expanding of even the most marginal of gun restrictions.
One of the few courageous Democrats to take up the issue is House Representative from New York, Carolyn McCarthy, who shortly after the assault in Tucson that left six dead and badly injured her colleague, Gabrielle Giffords, announced her intention to introduce a bill that would outlaw high capacity magazines like the one used by the shooter in said incident. It should be understood, that Ms. McCarthy comes by her position through brutal experience. In 1993, her husband was murdered and her son badly injured when a man named Colin Ferguson opened fire inside of a Long Island commuter train.
Still, despite her good and sensible intentions, no one thinks her bill will ever even make it to the floor of the Republican controlled House.
As soon as anyone even utters the thought of any type of gun restrictions, folks (typically) on the right start screaming about the Constitution, and freedom, and, well, you know the rest.
But let's get a few things straight here. When our forefathers wrote the second amendment stating our right to bare arms, they owned muskets. If you ever want to see how comparably ineffectual these weapons were compared to modern arms, then go to a Revolutionary war reenactment. Or, just rent Last Of The Mohicans (Daniel Day-Lewis version, naturally). Back in the 18th century, if your opponent took a shot at you and missed, you could scour the ground for a decent stone, walk a couple-a-hundred feet and beat him to death with it in the time it would take him to reload.
And as far as the freedom part, we do--believe it or not--have some sensible restrictions on weaponry in this country. Like you can't own a bazooka or a tank. But if you listen to gun rights advocates, you would swear that McCarthy's bill that would limit magazine capacity to 10 bullets, was the beginnings of a Bolshevik plot. In fact, the NRA actually fought for the rights of people on the "no fly" list to be able to purchase guns. Yeah, you heard that right. They stood up for people who were on the terrorist watch list.
Many of these folk have the dubious idea that more guns equals less crime. Well, this is one extremely well armed country, and the statistics do not bare out their position. A recent statistical analysis ranked the United States 9th out of 38 countries when it came to gun violence. Who beat us? Countries like Mexico, Brazil, and Northern Ireland. Two countries with very high poverty rates and one with centuries of political and religious based acrimony.
Not one first world country had a higher murder per capita rate than us.
So why do so many of us think that if the citizenry were well armed (which it is), we would have less crime? A lot of it has to do with the fantasy. The idea that well, if I had been there with my glock I woulda took that sucker out. First off, that almost never happens. Most people when they hear guns shots don't turn into Gregory Peck and The Guns Of The Navarone. Most people run in the opposite direction. Having a gun does not make you an action hero. It makes you a guy with a gun. That's all.
If you don't believe me, let's take a look at the state with perhaps the most lax gun laws in the union, Arizona. How lax are their gun laws? Well, here are some examples:
In the state of Arizona you do not need a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
You do not need a permit to purchase a handgun.
You do not need to register your handgun.
You do not need a license for your handgun.
You can carry a gun almost anywhere in the state, excepting doctor's offices and private businesses. But you can carry one into government buildings and even the state capitol. Anyone ever heard of Harvey Milk?
You can carry a gun into a bar. Although, you are not allowed to drink alcohol if you do. Which is fascinating to me. For one, why do people go to bars? And for two, who's responsible for making sure that you don't have a gun before you are served? Must the barkeep violate your rights by performing a "pat down?"
They even have a current proposal that would allow students and teachers to bring guns to school. Because what bad thing could happen with a well armed student body? I am willing to bet that certain pistol packing students would see their grades go up. "Oh, I disagree Professor. I think I deserve an 'A.'" Click-click.
The funny thing is, with all this lack of restriction, you might think that Arizona would be the first state that gun rights advocates would bring up when positing the more guns equals less crime argument. But you won't hear that. You won't hear that because Arizona has the 5th highest rate of firearm violence in the nation.
And let me add one more factoid to blow this argument all to hell. When that nutter walked up to congresswoman Giffords and shot her in the face, you know who stopped him after he blasted off 31 rounds and stopped to reload? Two senior citizens and a guy with a folding chair. None of them brandished a firearm. So, in a state with some of the most lenient gun laws in existence, where was our super hero to come in and save us with two guns blazing like he fell off of the silver screen of a John Woo movie? Ah, yes, that's right. They were in the movies.
The subject of gun control is where common sense goes to die. Any suggestion of restriction turns into a "slippery slope" argument about any limitation leading to ultimate limitation. And no statistics, no evidence, or any reason will be considered under any circumstances.
Next Tuesday, President Obama will deliver his third state of the union address. I expect his speech to lean heavily on the economy, civility, and I'm sure Congresswoman Giffords will get her well deserved tribute. But I do not expect him to touch--no matter how lightly--on the subject of gun control. Because he understands the same thing the rest of us do.
Everybody knows this is nowhere.
Sumo-Pop
January 22, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
The Tucson Memorial: We Had Forgotten
"No one laughs at God in a hospital."--Regina Spektor
As President Obama made his way tonight to the lectern at the University of Arizona's memorial service for those that we lost on Saturday due to a deeply troubled and deranged young man's violent outburst, it struck me that the President we needed was the one we first got to know on the campaign trail.
The gifted orator who transfixed and inspired so many of us while crisscrossing our nation had perhaps to some degree been missing in action. Not that he wasn't the same person. Or even a disappointment. Hardly. The extraordinary legislative achievements of the past two years were largely in keeping with the promises he made to us as a Senator running for the highest office in the land.
It's often said that you campaign in poetry and govern in prose. Perhaps we had so much hearty prose that we didn't realize how much we missed the poetry.
Until now.
The last two years have been as divisive and disturbing as any I can remember in my 40 years. Sometimes it's like watching that scene in Rebel Without A Cause when after being apprehended, James Dean bellows at his bickering parents in front of a police officer "You say one thing, she says another thing, then everybody switches back again!"
We have seen little but anger, rancor, and a nastiness that questions the faith, patriotism, and even the birthright of those who we disagree with. Too often this example set by our elected leaders have been followed by us in the electorate. We have been like children of alcoholics. The kind that do not learn from the mistakes of our elders, but repeat them. I consider myself among the number who has all too often followed suit.
Tonight, our President reminded us of the best of America. He shared the stories of these seemingly ordinary Americans who lived lives of dignity and grace. Lives that were threatened, wounded--and in the case of six--prematurely ended. He challenged us to live up to their memory.
The memory of an honorable judge.
The memory of a devoted couple.
The memory of a dedicated husband who used his body as a human shield.
The memory of a quilter who just wanted to say hello to a congresswoman she was fond of.
The memory of a young public servant on the cusp of his first marriage.
The memory of a sweet nine year old little girl with an unusual curiosity about public service.
He reminded us to "jump in rain puddles."
He also reminded us of the living.
He reminded us of a young man who ran toward the sound of gunfire to save the life of a boss he had only been employed by for a week.
He reminded us of three citizens who tackled the shooter and stemmed his madness before further terror could be inflicted.
He reminded us of the first responders and the vigilant doctors who worked so quickly to reduce the mortality level of those simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
He reminded us of a congresswoman who would regularly spend her weekends among her constituents by scheduling events she would call "congress on a corner."
And for many of us, he reminded us of why we liked him in the first place.
He reminded me that there was a reason why I walked those streets and knocked on those doors.
There was a reason I lent my full throat to those rallies.
There was a reason I badgered and cajoled those that were on the fence or apathetic.
There was a reason I walked into that ballot box and darkened that circle next to his name.
And that reason was in full bloom tonight.
And though the ice and snow has covered my state in such a way that it may be a long time before I get to see my next rain puddle, I do know what I'm going to do when I next make its acquaintance.
Sumo-Pop
January 12, 2010
As President Obama made his way tonight to the lectern at the University of Arizona's memorial service for those that we lost on Saturday due to a deeply troubled and deranged young man's violent outburst, it struck me that the President we needed was the one we first got to know on the campaign trail.
The gifted orator who transfixed and inspired so many of us while crisscrossing our nation had perhaps to some degree been missing in action. Not that he wasn't the same person. Or even a disappointment. Hardly. The extraordinary legislative achievements of the past two years were largely in keeping with the promises he made to us as a Senator running for the highest office in the land.
It's often said that you campaign in poetry and govern in prose. Perhaps we had so much hearty prose that we didn't realize how much we missed the poetry.
Until now.
The last two years have been as divisive and disturbing as any I can remember in my 40 years. Sometimes it's like watching that scene in Rebel Without A Cause when after being apprehended, James Dean bellows at his bickering parents in front of a police officer "You say one thing, she says another thing, then everybody switches back again!"
We have seen little but anger, rancor, and a nastiness that questions the faith, patriotism, and even the birthright of those who we disagree with. Too often this example set by our elected leaders have been followed by us in the electorate. We have been like children of alcoholics. The kind that do not learn from the mistakes of our elders, but repeat them. I consider myself among the number who has all too often followed suit.
Tonight, our President reminded us of the best of America. He shared the stories of these seemingly ordinary Americans who lived lives of dignity and grace. Lives that were threatened, wounded--and in the case of six--prematurely ended. He challenged us to live up to their memory.
The memory of an honorable judge.
The memory of a devoted couple.
The memory of a dedicated husband who used his body as a human shield.
The memory of a quilter who just wanted to say hello to a congresswoman she was fond of.
The memory of a young public servant on the cusp of his first marriage.
The memory of a sweet nine year old little girl with an unusual curiosity about public service.
He reminded us to "jump in rain puddles."
He also reminded us of the living.
He reminded us of a young man who ran toward the sound of gunfire to save the life of a boss he had only been employed by for a week.
He reminded us of three citizens who tackled the shooter and stemmed his madness before further terror could be inflicted.
He reminded us of the first responders and the vigilant doctors who worked so quickly to reduce the mortality level of those simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
He reminded us of a congresswoman who would regularly spend her weekends among her constituents by scheduling events she would call "congress on a corner."
And for many of us, he reminded us of why we liked him in the first place.
He reminded me that there was a reason why I walked those streets and knocked on those doors.
There was a reason I lent my full throat to those rallies.
There was a reason I badgered and cajoled those that were on the fence or apathetic.
There was a reason I walked into that ballot box and darkened that circle next to his name.
And that reason was in full bloom tonight.
And though the ice and snow has covered my state in such a way that it may be a long time before I get to see my next rain puddle, I do know what I'm going to do when I next make its acquaintance.
Sumo-Pop
January 12, 2010
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Gabbie Giffords And "Unimagineable"
"That may be free speech but it is not without consequences."--Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, Pima County, Arizona
By almost any measurement, Gabrielle Giffords is a model public servant. After an exemplary career in the Arizona State Senate, Giffords won the election to represent the 8th district of her state in the House of Representatives. A self described "Blue Dog" Democrat, Giffords worked hard to build a consensus on a variety of issues on both sides of the aisle. She was thought of fondly by almost everyone she ever came into contact with.
Today Gabbie--as she was commonly called--tweeted to her followers in her district to come to the local Safeway supermarket to attend an event she called "Congress on a corner." One of 5 events that she had scheduled for this day in what has been described as a typical effort on her part to make herself available to her constituents. Shortly after her tweet, an apparently deeply disturbed 22 year old man walked up to her and shot her in the face.
While I know this young man's name, I choose not to repeat it. He will be given plenty of coverage elsewhere until his name is no less ubiquitous than that of John Hinckley Jr. or Mark David Chapman. He will not get any help from me in reaching this level of infamy.
What I am concerned about today is the health of Gabbie Giffords--who is fighting for her life as I write this--the 11 wounded in various states of distress, and the 6 confirmed dead including a federal judge and a 9 year old girl. Yes, I am quite concerned about that.
I am also concerned about one more thing. The environment that quite likely contributed to the horrible tragedy in Tuscon today.
An environment of vitriol, hatred, and irresponsible word choices that lends voice, authority, and permission to the most fragile and unstable of minds.
Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer in her statement referred to the shooting today in her state as being "unimaginable." Really? Giffords' house was vandalized during the Health Care Reform debate, she had a brick thrown through her office, and Pima County Sheriff, Clarence Dupnick stated today, "I'm not aware of any public officials who are not receiving threats."So I ask again, really?
Even Giffords herself was aware of the risk. During the furor over Health Care Reform, Giffords referenced in an interview with MSNBC's Chuck Todd and Savannah Guthrie a "target list" on Sarah Palin's web site that literally showed a map of the United States with 20 districts across the country pinpointed with cross hairs. Including Giffords own eighth district.
Giffords herself said, "For example, we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is, that the way that she has it depicted has the cross hairs of a gun sight over our district. ...When people do that, they have to realize that there are consequences to that action."
How ghoulishly prophetic her words would turned out to be. Miss Palin has not been the only one engaged in such dangerous rhetoric. Although she may be the most prevalent in practice. Who can forget her efforts of crowd incitement during the 2008 Presidential Election? Referring to then Senator Obama as a "socialist" who "pals around with terrorists," and even questioning his birthright. People could be heard shouting "kill him!" at these events. Palin made no effort to quell this rising tide of hatred, she has instead created a whole cottage industry based upon her often incendiary views.
But she was hardly alone.
In March of 2009, House Republican from Minnesota, Michelle Bachmann said, that she wanted residents of her state to be "armed and dangerous" over President Barack Obama's global warming policies "because we need to fight back."
In July of last year, aspiring House Republican from Florida hired South Florida talk show host, Joyce Kaufman to be his Chief Of Staff. A woman who in discussing the coming mid-term election said, "If ballots don't work bullets will."
West himself, has referred to President Obama as "not a real American."
Republican Senate nominee, Sharron Angle of Nevada infamously stated, "And you know, I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems." You know the second amendment don't you? Where it says the "right bear arms."
Republican Senate nominee, Joe Miller of Alaska's security team "arrested" an individual for wanting to ask the nominee a question.
Republican nominee for Governor in New York state, Carl Palladino threatened to "take out" a reporter for attempting to ask a question.
The list goes on and on.
While all of the above examples are of the Republican variety, there are those on the left who have engaged in foolishness or worse.
Jack Conway's Kentucky Senate bid against Republican, Rand Paul was derailed by a bizarre debate where he described Paul as being anti-Christian and a follower of something called "Aqua Buddha."
Even worse was a campaign ad by House Democrat, Alan Grayson in the state of Florida that described his opponent as "Taliban Dan."
"Taliban Dan" and "Aqua Buddha" shows that both sides can engage in profoundly irresponsible behavior, but Republicans have made it a regular practice. And if Republicans have made it a regular practice, then the right wing in Arizona have made it into an art form.
During a remarkable press conference this evening, Sheriff Dupnik updated reporters on the state of the investigation of the Safeway shooting and declared Arizona a "Mecca for prejudice and bigotry."
And one has to wonder, what in the hell is going on in The Grand Canyon State?
Several years ago, the state had to lose an opportunity to host the Super Bowl before they finally allowed the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr. to be observed as a holiday in 1990. More than once, then and current Arizona Senator, John McCain voted against the observance.
Governor Brewer herself has engaged in inflammatory statements in regards to the state's illegal immigration issues, referring to beheadings and other crimes that there is little to no evidence of being perpetrated by undocumented Mexicans.
She doubled down on her efforts to alienate the state's considerable Hispanic population by signing into law an illegal immigration bill that usurps the authority of the federal government, asks law enforcement to participate in racial profiling, and is quite likely unconstitutional.
Hell, Governor Brewer even signed a bill into law that eliminates ethnic studies from being taught in the Arizona school system.
The heat of the mid-term elections did not miss Representative Giffords either. Her Republican opponent, Jesse Kelly, held an event called "'Help Remove Gabrielle Giffords From Office, " where the prize for showing up was getting to shoot a fully automatic M16 with the candidate.
You cannot make this stuff up.
Now, do I think any of these people who engaged in these veiled calls to violence wanted this to happen? Of course not. I'm sure that for the most part these were political calculations implemented to gin up the fervor of their base. And it certainly worked.
But at what cost?
I have no idea if this deeply troubled individual was affiliated with either party or any political group. Maybe he's just a nutcase that was compelled to act by all the voices in his head. Maybe the current state of division in our country coupled with the words of hate mongers on talk radio and television inspired today's assault. Maybe it's some of both.
What I do know is that all of the people criticized in this article have created a climate that has the potential to incite the angry, the extreme, and perhaps in this case, the deranged to horrific acts of violence.
Mrs. Palin has made a statement today decrying the attempted murder of Gabbie Giffords and has offered her thoughts and prayers to the family. She has also taken down the graphic on her web site that depicted the gun sites aimed at the 20 Democratic "targets." Earlier this year Mrs. Palin defended the use of this imagery against what she considered trite political correctness. Which begs the question, if nothing was wrong with it before and she feels no responsibility or shame, then why take it down now?
Perhaps she realizes that she and others of her ilk have made the weather. And now that the weather has manifested itself as a downpour of bullets, I don't want to hear them complaining about the rain.
Sumo-Pop
January 8. 2010
By almost any measurement, Gabrielle Giffords is a model public servant. After an exemplary career in the Arizona State Senate, Giffords won the election to represent the 8th district of her state in the House of Representatives. A self described "Blue Dog" Democrat, Giffords worked hard to build a consensus on a variety of issues on both sides of the aisle. She was thought of fondly by almost everyone she ever came into contact with.
Today Gabbie--as she was commonly called--tweeted to her followers in her district to come to the local Safeway supermarket to attend an event she called "Congress on a corner." One of 5 events that she had scheduled for this day in what has been described as a typical effort on her part to make herself available to her constituents. Shortly after her tweet, an apparently deeply disturbed 22 year old man walked up to her and shot her in the face.
While I know this young man's name, I choose not to repeat it. He will be given plenty of coverage elsewhere until his name is no less ubiquitous than that of John Hinckley Jr. or Mark David Chapman. He will not get any help from me in reaching this level of infamy.
What I am concerned about today is the health of Gabbie Giffords--who is fighting for her life as I write this--the 11 wounded in various states of distress, and the 6 confirmed dead including a federal judge and a 9 year old girl. Yes, I am quite concerned about that.
I am also concerned about one more thing. The environment that quite likely contributed to the horrible tragedy in Tuscon today.
An environment of vitriol, hatred, and irresponsible word choices that lends voice, authority, and permission to the most fragile and unstable of minds.
Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer in her statement referred to the shooting today in her state as being "unimaginable." Really? Giffords' house was vandalized during the Health Care Reform debate, she had a brick thrown through her office, and Pima County Sheriff, Clarence Dupnick stated today, "I'm not aware of any public officials who are not receiving threats."So I ask again, really?
Even Giffords herself was aware of the risk. During the furor over Health Care Reform, Giffords referenced in an interview with MSNBC's Chuck Todd and Savannah Guthrie a "target list" on Sarah Palin's web site that literally showed a map of the United States with 20 districts across the country pinpointed with cross hairs. Including Giffords own eighth district.
Giffords herself said, "For example, we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is, that the way that she has it depicted has the cross hairs of a gun sight over our district. ...When people do that, they have to realize that there are consequences to that action."
How ghoulishly prophetic her words would turned out to be. Miss Palin has not been the only one engaged in such dangerous rhetoric. Although she may be the most prevalent in practice. Who can forget her efforts of crowd incitement during the 2008 Presidential Election? Referring to then Senator Obama as a "socialist" who "pals around with terrorists," and even questioning his birthright. People could be heard shouting "kill him!" at these events. Palin made no effort to quell this rising tide of hatred, she has instead created a whole cottage industry based upon her often incendiary views.
But she was hardly alone.
In March of 2009, House Republican from Minnesota, Michelle Bachmann said, that she wanted residents of her state to be "armed and dangerous" over President Barack Obama's global warming policies "because we need to fight back."
In July of last year, aspiring House Republican from Florida hired South Florida talk show host, Joyce Kaufman to be his Chief Of Staff. A woman who in discussing the coming mid-term election said, "If ballots don't work bullets will."
West himself, has referred to President Obama as "not a real American."
Republican Senate nominee, Sharron Angle of Nevada infamously stated, "And you know, I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems." You know the second amendment don't you? Where it says the "right bear arms."
Republican Senate nominee, Joe Miller of Alaska's security team "arrested" an individual for wanting to ask the nominee a question.
Republican nominee for Governor in New York state, Carl Palladino threatened to "take out" a reporter for attempting to ask a question.
The list goes on and on.
While all of the above examples are of the Republican variety, there are those on the left who have engaged in foolishness or worse.
Jack Conway's Kentucky Senate bid against Republican, Rand Paul was derailed by a bizarre debate where he described Paul as being anti-Christian and a follower of something called "Aqua Buddha."
Even worse was a campaign ad by House Democrat, Alan Grayson in the state of Florida that described his opponent as "Taliban Dan."
"Taliban Dan" and "Aqua Buddha" shows that both sides can engage in profoundly irresponsible behavior, but Republicans have made it a regular practice. And if Republicans have made it a regular practice, then the right wing in Arizona have made it into an art form.
During a remarkable press conference this evening, Sheriff Dupnik updated reporters on the state of the investigation of the Safeway shooting and declared Arizona a "Mecca for prejudice and bigotry."
And one has to wonder, what in the hell is going on in The Grand Canyon State?
Several years ago, the state had to lose an opportunity to host the Super Bowl before they finally allowed the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr. to be observed as a holiday in 1990. More than once, then and current Arizona Senator, John McCain voted against the observance.
Governor Brewer herself has engaged in inflammatory statements in regards to the state's illegal immigration issues, referring to beheadings and other crimes that there is little to no evidence of being perpetrated by undocumented Mexicans.
She doubled down on her efforts to alienate the state's considerable Hispanic population by signing into law an illegal immigration bill that usurps the authority of the federal government, asks law enforcement to participate in racial profiling, and is quite likely unconstitutional.
Hell, Governor Brewer even signed a bill into law that eliminates ethnic studies from being taught in the Arizona school system.
The heat of the mid-term elections did not miss Representative Giffords either. Her Republican opponent, Jesse Kelly, held an event called "'Help Remove Gabrielle Giffords From Office, " where the prize for showing up was getting to shoot a fully automatic M16 with the candidate.
You cannot make this stuff up.
Now, do I think any of these people who engaged in these veiled calls to violence wanted this to happen? Of course not. I'm sure that for the most part these were political calculations implemented to gin up the fervor of their base. And it certainly worked.
But at what cost?
I have no idea if this deeply troubled individual was affiliated with either party or any political group. Maybe he's just a nutcase that was compelled to act by all the voices in his head. Maybe the current state of division in our country coupled with the words of hate mongers on talk radio and television inspired today's assault. Maybe it's some of both.
What I do know is that all of the people criticized in this article have created a climate that has the potential to incite the angry, the extreme, and perhaps in this case, the deranged to horrific acts of violence.
Mrs. Palin has made a statement today decrying the attempted murder of Gabbie Giffords and has offered her thoughts and prayers to the family. She has also taken down the graphic on her web site that depicted the gun sites aimed at the 20 Democratic "targets." Earlier this year Mrs. Palin defended the use of this imagery against what she considered trite political correctness. Which begs the question, if nothing was wrong with it before and she feels no responsibility or shame, then why take it down now?
Perhaps she realizes that she and others of her ilk have made the weather. And now that the weather has manifested itself as a downpour of bullets, I don't want to hear them complaining about the rain.
Sumo-Pop
January 8. 2010
There Will Be Gloat: Sizing Up The Lame Duck And The New Congress
"Then. I. Drink. Your. Milkshake. I Drink It Up!"--Daniel Day Lewis as Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood
The post mid-term rumors of President Obama's demise have been greatly exaggerated. All the purveyors of conventional wisdom had declared the President's agenda dead. After the "shellacking" that was the 2010 mid-term elections, it was hard to argue otherwise.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the execution. Harry Reid grew a spine and the President triangulated, cajoled, and outmaneuvered Republicans on a whole range of legislation.
First, the President swallowed hard and extended the Bush tax cuts for two years even though it meant including the wealthiest 2% in that compromise. Something the President had campaigned against and was loathe to do. But that wasn't the whole story. In exchange for the extension, the President got the Republicans to agree to a 13 month extension of unemployment benefits as well as multiple tax incentives and other measures designed to boost the economy. Taken in full, what the President got from Republicans amounted to a "back door" stimulus. Something the left had been clamoring for but had little chance of passage on it's own.
Of course, there were many on the far left who were mad. Mad as hell, in fact. They considered the compromise to be another in a long line of betrayals by the Obama Administration. Many House Democrats screamed, yelled, and stomped their feet. The reaction in the liberal blogosphere was even worse. All of which had the perverse effect of making the President look eminently reasonable. Public opinion began to sway in the President's favor and noted lefties such as Ezra Klein and Eugene Robinson started endorsing the plan. In the end, most of the Democrats in the House got behind the bill and the Senate followed suit.
Had the tax bill been the only legislation of note that passed during the lame duck, then most pundits would have likely favored the Republicans on the mythical scoreboard that has been created by the 24 hour news cycle. However, what came next was truly stunning.
On 12/18 (3 days after the tax cut compromise was passed), Congress repealed the military's execrable Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, allowing gay and lesbian soldiers the right to serve openly.
The next day saw the passage of the most expansive Food Safety bill since the 1930's.
And then on the very last day that congress was in session (12/22), both the START Treaty the President negotiated with Russia and the health care bill to cover the needs of 9/11 first responders cleared the necessary hurdles required to become law.
Hell, somewhere in there they even passed the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act that criminalizes the production and distribution of videos that depict the torture of animals.
There was damn near something for everyone during this not so lame duck session.
The last few weeks of the 111th congress were so successful, that Republican Senator from South Carolina, Lindsay Graham, confessed that "When it's all said and done, Harry Reid has eaten our lunch."
Speaking of Lindsay Graham, it should not go unmentioned that he and John McCain were made to look particularly silly during the month of December. Both made embarrassing statements to reporters and on the Senate floor arguing against START and DADT despite previous comments that implied they could potentially support both measures. McCain in particular, has become a complete laughing stock of contradiction and pettiness.
Now, all was not perfect during the lame duck. The President's budget collapsed after the right side of the aisle reneged on a promise to support the bill once the Tea Party started to raise their voices about the size of the budget and all of the earmarks attached. This defection created a painfully amusing show of contradictory behavior on the part of several Senate Republicans such as Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, and 2012 Presidential hopeful, John Thune of South Dakota. Both of whom railed against all the earmarks in the bill while neglecting to mention--until asked, anyway--that they had attached millions of dollars worth of earmarks to the bill themselves.
Perhaps even more painful was the failure to pass The DREAM ACT that would create a path to citizenship for children brought to this country illegally as long as they joined the military or completed a college degree during a specified window of time. This bill was extremely important to Hispanics who are a key part of Obama's electoral coalition. While this was indeed a setback, it is one that cuts both ways. The Hispanic community is the fastest growing minority group in the United States. One that Republicans can not afford to forsake long term. If nothing else, the introduction of the bill on the Senate floor by Harry Redi got Republicans on the record. A record that is potentially destructive to their party when one looks at the long term make up of the national electorate.
All of this success was of course tempered by the knowledge that the 112th congress would be far more Republican. The House had flipped and the Democratic majorities in the Senate have been narrowed. This week saw the passing of the gavel from Speaker Nancy Pelosi to new Speaker, John Boehner.
However, that isn't all this week saw.
What began with a legitimately solid speech by the new Speaker quickly devolved into a comedy of errors.
Incoming House Representative, Jeff Denham-R (CA), threw a lavish fund raiser complete with a performance by country music star, Leanne Rimes, that completely flew in the face of the austere image that Republicans have been trying to portray.
Republicans shot down a draft rule that would have made public the attendance of legislators at committee hearings. Perhaps the embarrassing incident regarding Republican Senator Tom Coburn 's initial argument against the 9/11 First Responders bill --that there had been no congressional hearings on the matter--played a part. After his statement, it was soon divulged on video that there was indeed a hearing on the issue. One which showcased Coburn's empty chair.
Republican leadership also had to deal with the backing away from their own pledge to cut $100 billion from the federal budget. A pledge that they have indicated they will fall well short of.
The most comical misadventure of the week had to be that of House Republicans Pete Sessions of Texas and Mike Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania who skipped their own swearing in ceremony but were allowed to take multiple votes in the new congress, violating the Constitution. In their defense, both said they watched the ceremony on television and took the oath via their cable connection. Right now, I am watching the Compass Bowl between the University of Kentucky and the University of Pittsburgh. Perhaps if I stand at attention and take an oath to the Kentucky Wildcats--something I would be proud to do--I will then become a 40 year old scholar-athlete for the commonwealth's premier university. But I think not.
Led by Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota in the House, the Republicans are discussing the repeal of the decidedly popular Financial Reform Bill. House Republican from California, Darrell Issa has gone as far to ask Wall Street what regulations they would like to have repealed. In other words, they would essentially allow Wall Street to regulate itself. Well, it sure worked out last time.
In other budget news, the House is looking to draft a new rule that would cede all budgetary authority to one man, Republican Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. This means that Ryan--all by his lonesome--will be allowed to set all spending ceilings without any vote by the rest of the house. Democracy in action.
Lastly, the House will be pushing forward with their doomed repeal of "Obamacare." Which I sort of understand. This is a nod to their base that is dressed in symbolism, but nothing more. However, when you pledge to bring no bill to the floor unless it has passed through committee and you swear to an open process that will allow amendments to be voted on for every piece of legislation, but you don't provide either on your first signature measure? Well, that's a fine way to start.
The fascinating bit of overreach here--as it relates to the repeal effort--is that by repealing the bill in whole, they also take away all the stuff that people like. Such as the eliminating of pre-existing conditions, the closing of the donut hole for seniors, and the allowing of parents to carry their children on their policies until the age of 26. Republicans argue that the bill is overwhelmingly unpopular with the public. Which if you look at the polls, it does indeed appear to be so. However, when you take a closer look into these polls, they tend to tell a different story. Most polls show that the full support of the current bill to be in the low to mid forties. But when you add that number to the percentage who don't like the bill because it isn't liberal enough, the percentage breaks over the 50% mark. Does anyone think that these folks want to go backwards even with their reservations? I doubt it. A recent Gallup poll showed that only 46% of respondents favor repeal. Furthermore, when you ask people about specific pieces of the bill, the support for repeal diminishes even more.
Not to mention, what does any of this have to do with job creation or deficit reduction? You know, the hallmarks of the Republican agenda. Oh sure, the new Republican Party line is to refer to Health Care Reform as the "Job killing Health Care Bill." Unfortunately--for them anyway--there is precious little data to support that position. In fact, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has stated that repealing Health Care Reform would actually add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit whereas keeping the bill in place would actually reduce the deficit. Speaker Boehner's response when this was pointed out to him by a reporter was to dismiss the CBO's report. Which is fascinating when you consider that Republicans were trumpeting the CBO's numbers on the first draft of the original Health Care Reform Bill (before the bill was changed and finalized) when it suited their position.
All of this is going on while the approval rating of the President continues to sneak up and incoming data on the economy is continually becoming more and more positive.
Which leads me to the conclusion that maybe the Democratic Party should get "shellacked " more often. In response to a beat down, they seem to become bolder and more able. Not to mention, if the new Republican agenda continues on this path, well, with enemies like these, who needs friends?
Sumo-Pop
December 8, 2010
The post mid-term rumors of President Obama's demise have been greatly exaggerated. All the purveyors of conventional wisdom had declared the President's agenda dead. After the "shellacking" that was the 2010 mid-term elections, it was hard to argue otherwise.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the execution. Harry Reid grew a spine and the President triangulated, cajoled, and outmaneuvered Republicans on a whole range of legislation.
First, the President swallowed hard and extended the Bush tax cuts for two years even though it meant including the wealthiest 2% in that compromise. Something the President had campaigned against and was loathe to do. But that wasn't the whole story. In exchange for the extension, the President got the Republicans to agree to a 13 month extension of unemployment benefits as well as multiple tax incentives and other measures designed to boost the economy. Taken in full, what the President got from Republicans amounted to a "back door" stimulus. Something the left had been clamoring for but had little chance of passage on it's own.
Of course, there were many on the far left who were mad. Mad as hell, in fact. They considered the compromise to be another in a long line of betrayals by the Obama Administration. Many House Democrats screamed, yelled, and stomped their feet. The reaction in the liberal blogosphere was even worse. All of which had the perverse effect of making the President look eminently reasonable. Public opinion began to sway in the President's favor and noted lefties such as Ezra Klein and Eugene Robinson started endorsing the plan. In the end, most of the Democrats in the House got behind the bill and the Senate followed suit.
Had the tax bill been the only legislation of note that passed during the lame duck, then most pundits would have likely favored the Republicans on the mythical scoreboard that has been created by the 24 hour news cycle. However, what came next was truly stunning.
On 12/18 (3 days after the tax cut compromise was passed), Congress repealed the military's execrable Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, allowing gay and lesbian soldiers the right to serve openly.
The next day saw the passage of the most expansive Food Safety bill since the 1930's.
And then on the very last day that congress was in session (12/22), both the START Treaty the President negotiated with Russia and the health care bill to cover the needs of 9/11 first responders cleared the necessary hurdles required to become law.
Hell, somewhere in there they even passed the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act that criminalizes the production and distribution of videos that depict the torture of animals.
There was damn near something for everyone during this not so lame duck session.
The last few weeks of the 111th congress were so successful, that Republican Senator from South Carolina, Lindsay Graham, confessed that "When it's all said and done, Harry Reid has eaten our lunch."
Speaking of Lindsay Graham, it should not go unmentioned that he and John McCain were made to look particularly silly during the month of December. Both made embarrassing statements to reporters and on the Senate floor arguing against START and DADT despite previous comments that implied they could potentially support both measures. McCain in particular, has become a complete laughing stock of contradiction and pettiness.
Now, all was not perfect during the lame duck. The President's budget collapsed after the right side of the aisle reneged on a promise to support the bill once the Tea Party started to raise their voices about the size of the budget and all of the earmarks attached. This defection created a painfully amusing show of contradictory behavior on the part of several Senate Republicans such as Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, and 2012 Presidential hopeful, John Thune of South Dakota. Both of whom railed against all the earmarks in the bill while neglecting to mention--until asked, anyway--that they had attached millions of dollars worth of earmarks to the bill themselves.
Perhaps even more painful was the failure to pass The DREAM ACT that would create a path to citizenship for children brought to this country illegally as long as they joined the military or completed a college degree during a specified window of time. This bill was extremely important to Hispanics who are a key part of Obama's electoral coalition. While this was indeed a setback, it is one that cuts both ways. The Hispanic community is the fastest growing minority group in the United States. One that Republicans can not afford to forsake long term. If nothing else, the introduction of the bill on the Senate floor by Harry Redi got Republicans on the record. A record that is potentially destructive to their party when one looks at the long term make up of the national electorate.
All of this success was of course tempered by the knowledge that the 112th congress would be far more Republican. The House had flipped and the Democratic majorities in the Senate have been narrowed. This week saw the passing of the gavel from Speaker Nancy Pelosi to new Speaker, John Boehner.
However, that isn't all this week saw.
What began with a legitimately solid speech by the new Speaker quickly devolved into a comedy of errors.
Incoming House Representative, Jeff Denham-R (CA), threw a lavish fund raiser complete with a performance by country music star, Leanne Rimes, that completely flew in the face of the austere image that Republicans have been trying to portray.
Republicans shot down a draft rule that would have made public the attendance of legislators at committee hearings. Perhaps the embarrassing incident regarding Republican Senator Tom Coburn 's initial argument against the 9/11 First Responders bill --that there had been no congressional hearings on the matter--played a part. After his statement, it was soon divulged on video that there was indeed a hearing on the issue. One which showcased Coburn's empty chair.
Republican leadership also had to deal with the backing away from their own pledge to cut $100 billion from the federal budget. A pledge that they have indicated they will fall well short of.
The most comical misadventure of the week had to be that of House Republicans Pete Sessions of Texas and Mike Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania who skipped their own swearing in ceremony but were allowed to take multiple votes in the new congress, violating the Constitution. In their defense, both said they watched the ceremony on television and took the oath via their cable connection. Right now, I am watching the Compass Bowl between the University of Kentucky and the University of Pittsburgh. Perhaps if I stand at attention and take an oath to the Kentucky Wildcats--something I would be proud to do--I will then become a 40 year old scholar-athlete for the commonwealth's premier university. But I think not.
Led by Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota in the House, the Republicans are discussing the repeal of the decidedly popular Financial Reform Bill. House Republican from California, Darrell Issa has gone as far to ask Wall Street what regulations they would like to have repealed. In other words, they would essentially allow Wall Street to regulate itself. Well, it sure worked out last time.
In other budget news, the House is looking to draft a new rule that would cede all budgetary authority to one man, Republican Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. This means that Ryan--all by his lonesome--will be allowed to set all spending ceilings without any vote by the rest of the house. Democracy in action.
Lastly, the House will be pushing forward with their doomed repeal of "Obamacare." Which I sort of understand. This is a nod to their base that is dressed in symbolism, but nothing more. However, when you pledge to bring no bill to the floor unless it has passed through committee and you swear to an open process that will allow amendments to be voted on for every piece of legislation, but you don't provide either on your first signature measure? Well, that's a fine way to start.
The fascinating bit of overreach here--as it relates to the repeal effort--is that by repealing the bill in whole, they also take away all the stuff that people like. Such as the eliminating of pre-existing conditions, the closing of the donut hole for seniors, and the allowing of parents to carry their children on their policies until the age of 26. Republicans argue that the bill is overwhelmingly unpopular with the public. Which if you look at the polls, it does indeed appear to be so. However, when you take a closer look into these polls, they tend to tell a different story. Most polls show that the full support of the current bill to be in the low to mid forties. But when you add that number to the percentage who don't like the bill because it isn't liberal enough, the percentage breaks over the 50% mark. Does anyone think that these folks want to go backwards even with their reservations? I doubt it. A recent Gallup poll showed that only 46% of respondents favor repeal. Furthermore, when you ask people about specific pieces of the bill, the support for repeal diminishes even more.
Not to mention, what does any of this have to do with job creation or deficit reduction? You know, the hallmarks of the Republican agenda. Oh sure, the new Republican Party line is to refer to Health Care Reform as the "Job killing Health Care Bill." Unfortunately--for them anyway--there is precious little data to support that position. In fact, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has stated that repealing Health Care Reform would actually add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit whereas keeping the bill in place would actually reduce the deficit. Speaker Boehner's response when this was pointed out to him by a reporter was to dismiss the CBO's report. Which is fascinating when you consider that Republicans were trumpeting the CBO's numbers on the first draft of the original Health Care Reform Bill (before the bill was changed and finalized) when it suited their position.
All of this is going on while the approval rating of the President continues to sneak up and incoming data on the economy is continually becoming more and more positive.
Which leads me to the conclusion that maybe the Democratic Party should get "shellacked " more often. In response to a beat down, they seem to become bolder and more able. Not to mention, if the new Republican agenda continues on this path, well, with enemies like these, who needs friends?
Sumo-Pop
December 8, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)