Kiss My Angry Middle Class / 8-8-11

For a long time now, I've pined for a third party to gain viability in American politics. I momentarily shut off the urge three years ago to enthusiastically support then-candidate Obama's White House run.

I'm feeling the urge again.

President B. Hussein Obama, it appears, has governed like a centrist on a mission. On a mission to find the position squarely between the R's and the D's on, oh, pretty much everything except health care. And even then, the centerpiece of the recently passed health care legislation, the individual mandate, is torn straight from the playbook of the conservative Heritage Foundation. Republicans championed it in 1994 as an alternative to health care reforms proposed by the much-beloved Hillary Clinton.

Well, maybe the President has been sprinting on purpose toward the center since his inauguration. If you're a pathetic swing voter (ed. note: apologies to actual swing voters), it makes for a pretty compelling reason to re-elect him, and he does appear to love building consensus. Allow me to expand on this briefly before we get to my hot sexy political fantasy.

On matters of taxes, the White House has capitulated to not just the Republicans, but the fringiest of right-wingers, the millimeters-from-fascist Tea Party wing, on two very visible occasions (extending the Reckless Bush Tax Cuts and during the recent debt-ceiling negotiations). Tax-policy wise, Obama might as well be a mainstream Republican. Oh yes, he's the last one left, by the looks of it. Someone update the Endangered Species list, stat.

Meanwhile, on social issues, Obama's Supreme Court appointments look solidly liberal. And DADT is mercifully gone, as per his instructions. (This paragraph virtually ensures my vote for him again next fall. I can scarcely imagine the alternative.)

Guantanamo? Still open for business. Warrantless eavesdropping? Continues. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Pullouts are happening. Aiming for the center again? Bulls-eye, Mr. President.

When it comes to treatment of the middle class, however, the current set-up is discouraging. On one "side": pro-obscenely-wealthy Republicans. On the other, but same, side: pro-regular-wealthy Democrats. Bisecting those two forces: a pro-kinda-wealthy President... ugh. The system needs someone fighting for us, if the three major players on the scene continue to show disinterest.

And by "fighting for us," I mean, to be perfectly clear, making economic policy that benefits the middle class. You know, the 80 percent of the country that keeps America running.

The thing is, people have been trying to launch third parties for quite a while. Ross Perot, in '92, tapped into a similar vein of dissatisfaction with the status quo; he scored 19 percent of the vote even after sabotaging his own campaign. The Green Party's been around long enough to swing some elections the wrong way and to elect local officials here and there. And it's plain to see we're only a couple twists of fate away from the Tea Party throwing a massive hissy fit, packing its bags and slamming the door in the Republicans' stunned faces. Recently, you might have noticed the Coffee Party on facebook. These guys get around, and maybe they're on to something.

Maybe. The Coffee Party is a good start, for sure. But its very name is borrowed from the Tea Loonies. And the Coffee Party's official motto -- "the middle class is too big to fail" -- comes off like a bunch of bitter welfare junkies got jealous one day that certain corporations got bailed out, and now they're wondering where to apply for their own government handout.

What we need in present-day America is a viable political force, a hefty, organized organization dedicated to preserving the economic conditions that led to creating the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth. We need a good platform, full of nuance and simplicity, that emphasizes cooperation rather than bickering, solutions rather than empty political "victories," and the interest of the many rather than of the very few. Politics should be about preserving liberty, finding answers, and enabling prosperity. (You know, the easy stuff.)

What we also need is a good name for this movement.

The People's Party is dead on arrival. So's the National Party. As is the Social Justice Party. the Constitution Party? Already taken by some delusional crazyheads.

The Liberty Party's a good name. I've used it before, most recently in this post from last September. The name sounds like the Libertarians, but it's different enough to sidestep confusion.

The Solutions Party -- this is easily my new favorite. It's a little intellectual-sounding, sure, and I admit it doesn't immediately evoke grand ideals, but it does evoke the actual fixing of problems. Let's run with this for a while. Freedom-loving intellectuals that we are.

Here's its platform.

1. Problem: Social issues are touchy. Solution: States decide social issues, like pot legalization, abortion, gay marriage, and other less fiery topics, like gun regulation.

Of course, the Supreme Court can strike down unconstitutional or discriminatory laws. But the SP politicians will fight for states' rights. Because social issues are complicated matters on which reasonable people can present conflicting arguments, the way forward is not to scream at or past each other. The answer is to present laws to the people, see what they think of it, pass something appealing, and see what the judges, whose job it is to interpret the Constitution, think of it. And then try again, if need be.

2. Problem: Government programs cost money, and nobody wants to pay. Solution: We must implement a tax code that ensures the poor pay some, the middle class pay more, the rich pay even more, and the richest pay the most.

It's the only way to pay for social programs, which are necessary. Imagine no welfare, no Social Security. That's cruel. The solution to cruelty (which is just another form of uncivilization): Establishing and maintaining a safety net, because real people experience real hardship.

The only way to have a lasting safety net is to pay for it. Taxes are a force for compassion when they are used in this way.

3. Problem: Deficits threaten our long-term economic health. Solution: Pick your moments to open the federal purse strings.

Deficits are to be avoided, but there's a time and a place for large-scale stimulus of the economy, fueled by reasonable amounts of borrowing at reasonable rates. There's also a time to run a surplus. The economy will often dictate when these times are. Severe recessions or depressions call for the government to step in and fill the void. Times of robust growth are a great time to keep the deficit in check, and if not to actually decrease it, to prevent it from growing. Holding the national debt steady is the same as shrinking it, if the country's economy grows as a whole.

Times of pleasant economic expansion are not to be treated as blank checks to create new programs. We have enough entitlements already. If we'll only pay for them.

4. Problem: War sucks. Solution: Be certain of a mission and rectitude before embarking on military action.

War is terribly expensive in lives and in cash better spent at home. Military action should always remain on the table, but should not permanently live at the top of the list of options. Pacifism is out of the question for a country; it's fine for individuals and their consciences, great, but not at all OK as a means of defending the richest and most influential nation on the planet.

Presidents who start unnecessary or unjustified wars should be prosecuted. It's too large of a crime to let go unpunished.

5. Problem: We're not anywhere near energy independent. Solution: Go green now. With a vengeance.

Energy must come from as many green sources as possible, be as homegrown as possible, and all avenues of producing energy must be investigated and researched to their fullest, funded by public and private partnerships. In the meantime, we should drill for oil where we can and farm wind where we can. Pour billions into solar energy research. Ingenuity will find a way, but not without some serious cash behind it.

6. Problem: Unemployment. Solution: Balance in how the government treats businesses.

Corporations are not people. Their rights are not the same as those of citizens, their responsibilities are not the same, and their tax burden is not the same. Taxes on businesses must be kept as low as possible to encourage job creation, while not allowing any industry to collect enough subsidies to eliminate its tax burden entirely.

7. Problem: Middle-class wages are stagnant. Solution: CEO pay must be capped.

The free market exists to enrich the country, not the fortunate few ladies and gentlemen who head Fortune 500 companies. Cap CEO pay at x times the average worker of said company, and more employees will make more money.

This is highly interventionistic. It also makes so very much sense. If you can get past the idea of "It's my business, I can run it any old way I want" mindset FOR THIS NARROW BRANCH OF CAPITALISM ONLY, then checks on extreme wealth make sense. Should this type of regulation seep, little by little, into the marketplace, to pave the way for communism? Yeah no.

8. Problem: Elected officials spend more time fund-raising than legislating. Solution: National campaigns become publicly financed.

This is a pretty straightforward fix. Moving along.

9. Problem: Lack of access to higher education perpetuates a cycle of poverty and ignorance. Solution: Free higher education for everyone.

College should be free, including tuition, room and board, at state-run universities, for all comers. Period. Do what you want if you're Harvard or Central Connecticut College of the Coming Biblically Based Apocalypse (Go Horsemen!), but let's get working on breaking the cycle of poverty that stems from unequal access to higher education. More education = larger, smarter middle class = brighter future for the country.

There could be more planks to the platform. I just cobbled this together in a quarter-assed sort of way, as a harmless hobby, really. But then again, 1. covers a lot of legislative and ideological ground.

My hope is that the Solutions Party, as presented, is not placeable upon the left-right continuum. That's good, I believe. One wing of the political spectrum does not have a monopoly on sensible solutions. Otherwise, why would there even be more than one wing?

Now if only the SP could avoid the fate of all its predecessors so far -- that is, becoming the outhouse of American politics...

For Nothing / 3-13-11

I don't mean this in a rude manner, because there are serious cataclysms going on, but posts on Libya and Japan can wait. (There's still, in any case, at least three weeks until the Rapture, by my meticulous reading of biblical fortunetelling texts. And shouldn't there be locusts first anyway?)

No, the Wisconsin shenanigans have pissed me off, and the blood continues to proverbially boil, even a few days later.

(Six points of reference before the real post begins: 1. WI is a middle-of-the-road swing state and should be governed as such and not as some wet-dream political laboratory for the far right; 2. Stripping collective bargaining rights from teachers but not from firefighters? Really? I mean, really...; 3. Why have quorum requirements at all if they be bypassed with trickery? Makes no sense; 4. The WI Senate probably violated open meeting laws; 5. Don't try and disguise your power plays as budget solutions; 6. It's just plain wrong to try and legislate unions out of existence.)

Recent events in the Midwest (Ohio and Indiana passed similar measures, although to be fair, how would you know, with Charlie Sheen leading a band of Libyan-Egyptian rebels as they seek to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act while dodging suicide bombers) have been jarring. They have managed to push me back from the terrifying brink of courteous bipartisanship, where I tried to live last week, and have thankfully returned me to my natural home of unvarnished partisan liberalism.

With that out of the way, I think it's safe to say now, politely, factually, but also aggressively, that the Republican Party is officially the Party Of Against.

Somethin' like this has been said before. It was fashionable in many circles to call the GOP the "Party of No" immediately following Obama's election, and for good reason: that was their only move, outnumbered in Congress and the West Wing of the Mixed-Race House. In those happy months, the few remaining R's were virtually powerless to stop the slothlike, icebergian, tectonic-plate-speed advancement of Democratic-sponsored legislation. After all, all they said -- whimpered -- during that golden age was No, no, no.

And while that was adorable for a while, elections have consequences, and R's enjoyed a giant Boehner for the duration of 2010, which climaxed with them retaking the House and almost the Senate, and pushing the president EVEN farther to the right.

But back to the polite, factual, aggressive mutilation promised earlier. And maybe less gutter humor along the way, you ask? Eh. We'll see. I guarantee nothing.

Rules Of The Game: I will make none of the following statements up. I might embellish with Johnvented words. You can't stop me. All claims will be accurate; all opinion will be supported with D-cup arguments. (All worked up, can't help myself.)

I'd wager that some statements found below will even be perceived as complimentary, in the eye of the right kind of conservative beholder.

Crucial Disclaimer: I may generalize at times (i.e., not every Republican disbelieves in climate change), but that will not and should not detract from the accurate nature of what follows.

Opening Salvo: The Republican Party is best defined not by what it stands for, but instead by what it sets its sights on blocking.

List Of Illustrations:

1. R's are against more regulation anywhere, in principle.

2. R's are against more power being consolidated in the federal government's hands.

3. R's are against taking steps to combat climate change.

4. R's are against allowing a certain legal procedure to be performed. (We all know which medical procedure this refers to; it's the one the Supreme Court has declared legal in each of the past four decades.)

5. R's are against legalization of marijuana. 'Cept for my Kentucky buddy Rand Paul, The Perfect One.

6. R's are against same-sex marriage. One fair poll here.

7. R's are against taking steps to prevent accidental gun deaths (30,000 a year). When trigger locks become mandatory, they do their darndest to overturn that kind of life-saving legislation. Next.

8. R's are against universal health care. (Except Mitt Romney, 2006 model year.)

9. R's are against raising taxes in any economic situation on any segment of the population, for any reason. (Still trying to decide if that's hyperbole or not. Still trying.)

10. R's are against any expansion of the social safety net.

11. R's are against the power of unions to collectively bargain. Ohio, Indiana and now Wisconsin legislatures have removed those rights. Michigan's working on it. Pennsylvania too. Conservative darling and New Jersey Governor -- and noted liar -- Chris Christie is tinkering with the idea.

12. R's are against Muslims and Islam in general. (Link, link, link, more links are easy to find but that should be enough.) Free admission: this is a broad generalization I make here. But a good one. And by good, I mean highly defensible. Click the links.

13. R's are against amnesty for illegal immigrants and their children, no matter how long any of the family members have lived stateside. Besides Reagan, of course, he was a fan. But nobody listens to him anymore.

14. R's are against campaign finance reform.

15. R presidents are, in practice, squarely against balancing the federal budget. They're against even trying.

16. R legislators are against equal pay for equal work legislation. The vote in the House two years ago on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act: 250-177. (The big number was the Democrats. The teeny tiny number was the other guys. Emphasis on guys.)

That ought to do it. Did I forget anything? (Like reparations, or habeas corpus, which I didn't forget, but decided to leave out?) Well, if I did, this guy probably said it, since his like-minded post went live while I took a break to work for a living. Jerk.

Madison, Egypt / 2-21-11

Tunisia and Egypt threw off their Dictator-Presidents earlier this month. Hundreds of protesters perished last weekend in Libya; the carnage there continues today.

Why?

It's simple. They've been oppressed for decades. Centuries.

All they want is some freedom. Self-governance. Civil liberties. Economic freedoms. More guaranteed rights. Just like the ones a lot of other humans enjoy. Freedom engenders a righteous envy.

Most basically, they want more flavors of liberty.

It makes perfect sense: Freedom is delicious. Far from blaming Tunisians, Egyptians and now Libyans for causing trouble, we admire their efforts and wish them success.

Meanwhile, nobody has died in Wisconsin (U.S.A.) during the week of protests against Governor Scott Walker's plan to remove certain collective bargaining rights from nurses, firefighters, teachers and cops.

And Mr. Walker has only been in office eight weeks. He's not yet eligible for dictator status anyway.

Plus, he's not proposing to suspend religious freedom. Or curtail free speech. Or revoke the Second Amendment. He's just trying to break unions.

But this is where comfort might come from tonight: Human beings a continent and a half away are selflessly shedding their own blood, in pursuit of more rights. And thankfully, respecting their sacrifice, enough of us in this freest of nations continue to resist those who would nudge us (even if only a little) back toward the ugly place from which so many North Africans are trying to flee.

Carry on, Wisconsin protesters. And any lovers of liberty worldwide, you too.

Before the Night is Through / 11-02-10

Six random and unrandom thoughts as the election progresses.

1. Democrats may well have won the expectations game. Everyone and their dog's fleas saw the GOP House takeover coming. But there were three main story lines for tonight: Will the R's take the House? And how about the Senate? How many Democratic statehouses would flip?

By conceding the first point, then winning point two and scoring a couple crucial victories in point three (CO, CA, MA), the Democrats salvaged something of a split decision. Not in true value of seats won or lost, but in the expectations department. Don't misquote me: tonight was a bad, bad, bad night for the left. Bad. (At least for left-leaning incumbents.) But they still control one and a half branches of government, while pulling off a couple high-profile gubernatorial wins.

In short, they avoided a repeat of 1994.

2. Colorado Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot. Less than 10 percent for their gubernatorial nominee (and it's going to be close) means they receive minor-party status on the 2012 ballot, and share space with the Greens and others. Not a disaster, for sure -- motivated conservatives will find the dude with the R next to his name no matter where they put him. But Floridians can tell you that ballot design has a knack of finding a way to matter.

3. Tea Party successes (Paul in KY, Rubio in FL) figure to nudge Sarah Palin closer to a 2012 run. Please. Do it Sarah. For all the "Real" Americans out there. Best way for the R's to lose their hard-earned House? Put the least respected candidate in recent memory at the top of the ballot. I used to fear she would win if nominated. Now I am fairly certain she will not. So bring it on, Grisly Mama.

4. Locally, 65 percent of Washingtonians are rejecting an income tax that would have been levied strictly on those earning more than $200k (or $400k per household). Great. Now we too can inch closer to bankruptcy, just like the people from two states south, whose example we love to emulate. Way to go.

5. Oh boy, Nevada and Alaska could be lots of fun tonight. And tomorrow. And into December.

6. This is our third straight "wave" election. This doesn't happen in American political history, uh, ever. Well, now the GOP has to help govern. They've been really good at saying "No" without voters asking them why they want the unemployed to lose their home, children to go without health insurance, and Wall Street to be able to run wild again.

Maybe now the voters will see what "ideas" the R's have, and we can start to build momentum for a fourth wave in 2012... but first, my conservative friends, enjoy your partial victory for a day or so.

Surprise! 11-01-10

Something in tomorrow night's election results will shock the world.

Actually, the way things are going in elections nowadays, the lack of a high-profile shocking result somewhere would probably be... shocking. (Gotta find me a thesaurus.)

But the real point here is that according to these historical poll numbers, the 2010 midterm congressional election is quite unlike its most recent sibling, the 2006 overthrow of the Republican House and Senate.

(Click on the link if you want to be confronted with 136 trillion numbers in pretty little tables, or if you're a nerdgeek like me. Keep reading if you trust me to share some interesting highlights.)

In 06, anti-Bush sentiment swept D's into control of Congress.

This year, almost as many voters say they're motivated to vote to support Obama as those who say they're excited to vote against him.

In 06, Democrats were winning the "Likely Voter" battle by 10-12 points.

This year, Republicans seem to hold a 4-6 point edge.

In 06, Iraq and the economy were the biggest issues, by far, on voters' minds. Terrorism came in a distant third.

This year, it's the economy, health care, and "D.C. is broken," in that order.

In 06, about 5 out of 7 voters wanted to see Congress change hands. About 60 percent of voters disapproved of the job Congress was doing

This year, it's 4 out of 7. And yet 75 percent disapprove of Congress.

There's more coming, but I want to pause for analysis.

A) There are more D's than R's in the electorate, but R's are more likely to turn out. So they say. And history bears this out, at least as far as midterms, whose voters tend to be older, more white, and -- shocking! -- more conservative than the population at large. And yet... President Obama enjoys much more midterm support than Bush did in '06, when Democrats won 30 seats. If R's win "only" 30 seats, they won't take the House. 40 are necessary.

B) Democrats turned out like crazy in 2006, and won 30 seats. Republicans will turn out like crazy this year.

C) People are pissed at Congress. Not just at the D's in Congress. At the R's too. Just look at how many moderate conservatives got primaried this year by far-right folks like O'Donnell and Angle and Rubio. To say that only Democratic seats are at risk is, well, a risky statement. Nobody is safe this time around.

Everyone has a So-and-So as their congressman. The Democrats have more So-and-So's. (Obviously.) And the electorate is very, very angry with all the So-and-So's. Therefore, many more Democrats will fall tomorrow night. But look for some incumbent Republicans to go down, too.

D) Polling is interesting now. You have to REALLY want to answer a poll to participate, what with cell phones and do-not-call lists and various call screening techniques. Roughly a quarter of American adults rely exclusively on their mobile phones for, uh, phone calls. (Some of the new phones still offer number-to-number dialing. You can use them for that purpose, according to their manuals. Who knew?) The chart ten paragraphs down in this story is useful information. All this to say, even the polls that claim to include cell phone respondents... can you take their results at face value? This seems like a very, very big thorn in pollsters' sides, and it's only going to get worse. For them.

E) That being said, anger is a powerful motivator, and if making conclusions based on only the information above, I'd have to say the R's will win on the order of 35-40 seats. We might not know until 2011 who controls the House.

Back to poll facts. So I can change my conclusion. (I waffle! I flip-flop! I'm ready for office!)

More than half this year's projected voters see a candidate's affiliation with the Tea Party as important to them. Yet more than half of those voters specifically cite Tea Party affiliation as a reason to vote AGAINST that candidate. Jab at the right wing!

64 percent of Obama voters claim they're "certain" to vote this year. 79 percent of McCain voters make the same claim. That's a blow to the head for Democrats. Factor in that the independents believe the country is on the wrong track. Another uppercut.

Then ask yourself which voters are most likely to have changed their minds since '08. The folks who voted for the R during an economic meltdown, or the folks who chose the new guy for a change of political scenery?

Independents favor Republicans handily. And the number of independents keeps growing. The good news for Democrats? Independents tend to change their minds. The bad news for Democrats? Independents have done their mind-changing for the cycle, and not in a leftward direction.

So let me amend my earlier conclusion. Republicans will take the House. 48 seats in all, a handful more than they need. But the 70-seat tsunami some conservative pundits are crowing about -- the numbers don't bear that out.

(P.S.: Bonus analysis, founded in feeling, not fact: Democrats will keep the Senate, probably 53-47. Patty Murray and Barbara Boxer aren't losing this year, and one of them has to be terminated for the Senate to flip. But again, I'm just some dude sitting at his computer, in the most beautiful state in the union, in the best-educated city in the nation, surrounded by a bunch of liberal hippies. So what do I know?)

144 or Less, Vol. IV / 10-23-10

An interesting thing has happened as the 2010 campaign winds down.

With Republicans offering several immoderate candidates (Miller, O'Donnell, Angle, Paladino, Toomey) for Senate, two familiar figures have emerged as leaders of their respective parties.

President Obama for the D's; Sarah Palin for the R's. The former has been crisscrossing the country to help liberals retain the Senate; the latter has encouraged voters to elect Tea Party-approved candidates and give conservatives control of the House.

Both will probably succeed at their tasks -- which is a result I love.

Not because it divides government. But because an emboldened Palin, flush with kingmaking success, then becomes THE face of the right. And 39 percent of Republicans think she'd make a good president. Not 39 percent of Americans -- only counting R's here.

Just 25 percent of Americans view her favorably.

So keep visiting Iowa, Sarah.

(Word count: 143)

144 Or Less, Vol. II / 10-14-10

A federal judge just declared DADT unconstitutional. Naturally, the Democrats running the Justice Department will appeal.

Huh?

Saying they want to proceed with already-laid plans to phase out DADT, administration officials will fight the ruling.

Yeah. See. There exists no bad time to end discrimination, no bad way to restore dignity to soldiers who volunteered their very life to their country. Take the gift, Barack. Run with it.

Appealing makes zero sense, politically. Obama's choice to deliver the death-blow to DADT himself dampens left-wing enthusiasm and costs the D's precious midterm votes. Not a single rabid anti-gummint whiner will read today's headlines and find his mind changed or his passion to defeat the Black Socialist Secret Muslim abated.

So -- pardon my French -- BHO had better make damn well sure DADT is toast very, very soon, or he can start perusing want ads.

(Word count: 144)

Revolution or Insurrection? / 9-15-10

Electoral Threat flags. I'm passing them out. Get yours now!

1. A yellow one to fellow Democrats everywhere rejoicing that extremists (it's unfair to call them Republicans - these Tea Partiers are something else altogether) are on the ballot anywhere. You/We aren't very popular at this time, so there's no telling who can and can't beat you/us. Just because it looks like the wild-eyed revolutionary on the other side will lose doesn't mean he or she will, in fact, lose. American political history is (WARNING: please select your own cliche) sprinkled/littered/dotted/peppered with events that once seemed improbable.

2. A red one to Republicans everywhere. Your party is in grave danger of being overrun by people who have no business holding office on the local urban planning committee, much less in the United States Senate or the House Judiciary Committee or Appropriations Committee or Armed Forced Committee or anything rhyming with Blummittee.

There are three types of R's these days. Segment One: Those folks who have left the GOP and now call themselves independents, though they'll vote for an R 98 percent of the time. Segment Two: Social Conservatives, i.e. Christian fundamentalists. Segment Three: Tea Partiers and Libertarians, with views that don't fit into the mainstream and cannot win electorally absent a miracle.

This is a losing coalition, if you can call it that. It is fated for doom. Maybe not right away, but it cannot last. It's like a meal of potato chips, french fries and mashed potatoes. They all make really good sides, but where's the beef?

3. A green one to folks who would seize this moment to launch a new populist party. Voter anger is at an all-time high. Few non-Republicans want the GOP back in power after Bush/Cheney/Rove ransacked the nation for eight years. Few non-Democrats want the current crop of liberals to remain in power. Usually, swing voters swing in a swinging way from one side of the political spectrum to the other, helping to keep the parties honest and the blood relatively fresh in D.C.

This time, the swingers are looking for another target of their affection. I'd just as soon have it be a real party with real ideas, as opposed to the TP's fantasy world in which we can eliminate Social Security and balance the budget by cutting off aid to Israel and letting the Middle East blow itself up.

A as-of-now fictitious Liberty Party, built on responsible levels of taxation, spending and involvement overseas while maintaining budgetary prudence and respecting civil liberties... that party would clean house this cycle. If only it existed. Right now. Yesterday now. (We Democrats are supposed to be that party, by the way. We really should let more people know.)

Anyway. The flags mean whatever I want them to mean. Like the terror threat levels, I use them at my convenience to accomplish my own ends.

Oh yeah, and 4. A rastafarian-looking one to me. Equal amounts of red, yellow and green. I am tempted to interpret the Tea Party's ascendancy as bad for the GOP, therefore as good for the country, but if these people get in office, God help us all. Also, I would be one of the folks easily wooed by a new party that promises new solutions to our looming budgetary problems, when in actuality, I just need to continue to support the D's, who are the party which seeks to champion the middle class, after all. Get a grip, John!

Give Me Taxes Or Give Me Death, Part II / 9-14-10

Well well, look who's not really serious about the deficit after all.

Republicans screaming "Save the tax cuts for the rich," that's who.

Summary: Bush tax cuts for everyone are set to expire at the end of the year. President Obama wants them to expire - for those individuals or families making more than $250k, but not for the middle class. He's fine with extending that portion of the tax cut. Republicans say they'll fight that course of action if congressional Democrats try it. The tax cuts will expire for everyone and tax rates will return to 1999 levels if no agreement is reached.

It is that simple. All other commentary is helpful, but not crucial. It comes down to, whose side are you on? And most the D's are, yet again, as almost always, on the side of 98 percent of the population, and all the R's are, yet again, as almost always, on the side of 2 percent of the population. (Follow the link. Do it.)

Looking at pure numbers, the President shouldn't have a terrible time selling his preference to Americans, except that his White House couldn't make itself look good if it invented cold fusion and brokered permanent peace in the Middle East while solving world hunger on the side.

All BHO has to say is something like this, right?

"We were a more prosperous, more responsible nation while President Clinton was in office. I believe the tax rates that were reasonable in the nineties remain reasonable now for our wealthiest citizens. George Bush's tax cuts were reckless and unnecessary, and should they survive, they would grow the deficit to an even more dangerous level. You can't have it both ways, my conservative friends. You can't spend the last two years harping on the deficit your party's presidents created, then decline to raise revenue when the opportunity presents itself in the natural way it has. Either you're for deficit reduction or against it. Time to choose. I've chosen my route, and I am proud of it, and I trust the American people to support a more responsible course of action than the one they've grown accustomed to seeing from their leaders.

"Therefore, you will join me in letting the tax cuts expire for only the wealthiest Americans. Or you will show yourselves to be the deficit enablers you have been for the past 30 years."

Instead, we got:

"But we’re still in this wrestling match with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell about the last 2 to 3 percent, where, on average, we’d be giving them $100,000 for people making a million dollars or more — which in and of itself would be OK, except to do it, we’d have to borrow $700 billion over the course of 10 years. And we just can’t afford it."

It's a start. But we're not in a wrestling match, Mr. President. A power struggle you should be winning, but aren't. Yet. Partly because there are five numbers in that sentence. And while I followed what you were saying, most people tuned you out after $100,000, before you got to the important part: the "we just can't afford it" part. That's the lead. People understand "we can't afford it." Nowadays, it rings true and urgent. Start there, mix in a jab about how Republicans only care about the deficit when it gives them an excuse to block legislation aimed to help the middle class, then give numbers for support.

(I sound arrogant, but mostly I'm just annoyed with how the facts and public opinion are on the D's side and yet the fight goes on.)

Here are some more encouraging responses from Democrats, all from Massachusetts.

Rep. Michael Capuano: “We either have to give Republicans everything they want or they’ll take their ball and go home? Well, go home then."

Rep. Jim McGovern: “I would be happy to listen to any ideas that my Republican friends have that won’t explode the deficit and which would actually help create jobs — like tax credits for small businesses and incentives for manufacturing.’’

Rep. Richard Neal, a key member of the House Ways and Means Committee: “If there’s a compromise that we can live with that protects the middle class, I’m open to it,’’ adding he wants to dedicate revenue from expiring tax cuts to begin to pay down Iraq war debt.

Let's see if THAT message gets out.

I Slam Islam / 8-16-10

Religious puns are the best.

As you'd imagine, I don't personally have any problem with Islam. I mean, no more problem than with every other organized religion. All self-perpetuating institutions screw up every so often, go off the deep end, do some seriously f'ed-up stuff in obvious complete opposition to the purported teachings of their faith. It doesn't take a whole lotta research to find some pretty massive screw-ups by powerful people claiming to act in a religion's best interest. (As if that were even possible. If you have truth, it will win out, with or without your "help," such as it may be.)

But slamming Islam has become something of a national sport, and it's driving me absolutely crazy. People with megaphones are going out of their way to trample the Bill of Rights in a way that should shame them -- but instead, they're proud of their actions.

Case in point: the media-driven furor over the right of Muslims living in Manhattan to build a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero. City planners in Manhattan approved the project, which consists of a mosque and community center designed to improve relations between Muslims and non-Muslims. (Please provide your own ironic comment here.) Obviously, their plans didn't please EVERYONE.

"In my opinion, the prospect of a mosque right near this site of reverence and respect for lost loved ones from the attack shows a serious lack of sensitivity.In fact, the majority of the country is strongly opposed to building a mosque at the site of the most tragic terrorist attack on America." That's from Senator David Vitter of Louisiana. I chose his words because they were less inflammatory than the average politician's. (I could have quoted the usual blowhards here -- you know who you are -- but I wanted to save that for later. And Vitter's right about the "majority of the country," but we'll get to that in due course as well. Like, after about 5,000 words of snarkventarrhea. What? Is too a word.)

As I was saying. Not everyone so happy-happy joy-joy about this turn of events. So when President Obama stated that Muslims are entitled, as per the basic rules of our country, to build places of worship near their places of residence, his pronouncement was national news. THIS JUST IN: Obama Supports Freedom Of Assembly! BREAKING NEWS: Obama Consults Constitution In Crafting Opinion!

Excuse me, but Duh.

Only somehow, Not Duh.

Newt Gingrich, this past Sunday, on Fox: "Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There’s no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center."

GOP congressional candidate Elliott Maynard (W. Va.): "Do you think the Muslims would allow a Jewish temple or Christian church to be built in Mecca?"

I could point out that Gingrich just equated attending a religious service with genocide, and that Maynard thinks that we should exchange constitutions with Saudi Arabia, but I have faith that their words fail on their own, without my help. (Oops.)

Important data on its way. Aaaaaaaaaaand... go:

61 percent of Americans: "Muslims have the right to build a mosque near Ground Zero."

64 percent of Americans: "Muslims should not build a mosque near Ground Zero."

(Those figures come from a Fox News poll. That's all I'm going to say about that. Actually, their polling is not the worst in the business, as long as you)

Sarah Palin read the poll results and chimed in. (I like her. But maybe not in the way you think.) On her twitter page recently, which I really really won't link to: "We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? This is not above your pay grade. " Sarah is awesome. She manages to say, like millions of others before and since, that freedom is fine as a CONCEPT. Just don't try and exercise it. Well, not you guys at least.

As for Democrats who deserve a flogging, I give you Senate Majority "Leader" Harry Reid, who opposes, for stupid reasons, the building of the mosque at that location. "The First Amendment protects freedom of religion," wrote Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid. "Sen. Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built someplace else."

(Like maybe in Harlem? Or Brooklyn? How far is far enough, people? What degree of inconvenience do we need to impose on Muslims to make ourselves feel better about... well, whatever it is we need to feel better about at the time?)

Now Reid I can forgive. Sort of. He's in a tight re-election race, he needs to move to the center by taking some positions to his right, to move beyond his base. Those kind of tactics are covered in Intro to Beginners' Basic Elementary Campaigning, Level Zero. I bet Reid doesn't even believe the statement his camp published. He's a Mormon, for crying out loud. He knows about religious intolerance. At least in theory.

But how is it even possible, in the first place, that party lines are drawn over this issue? How is it possible that Reid pissing all over the Bill of Rights is a "move to the center?" I so do want to write "What have we come to as a nation," but I permit myself only x+1 cliches per post.

Unless... unless... the right wing is the side that stopped believing in freedom of religion. Which would be an interesting stance for the party which depends on fundamentalist Christian votes to survive.

RNC Chair Mike Steele: "Mosques are a luxury. We Christians will decide where they may be built, if we allow them at all."

Fundamentalist Stooges: "OK."

Steele: "We'll do the same for the synagogues."

Stooges: "Well, all right."

Steele: "And no more parishes. Until I say so."

Stooges: "Er."

Steele: "Oh, and Rush says no wards outside of Utah."

Stooges: "Uh-"

Steele: "Also, let's say, no-"

Stooges: "Later guys. Let's go make our OWN party."

(Wet dream ends.)

Does it occur to nobody that if the situation were reversed, that the Christian fundies would howl -- and rightfully so -- that their rights were being denied by an oppressive Islamic majority? (It occurs to me. I've thought about it, and I'm only six or seven times more intelligent than your average cable news host or candidate for office, so you'd think some of them would have caught on by now. Or decided that they've been pretending too long to not catch on.)

(Holy punctuation overload, Batman. If this keeps up, my parentheses keys are going to fall off.)

Other Western countries are playing the I Slam Islam game, too. France's congress banned the burqa last month. Canada isn't donating to disaster relief in Pakistan at nearly the rate it gave to Haiti. For a disaster affecting 14 million people in Pakistan, Canadians have cobbled together $200,000 dollars in the first week. Haiti received 17 times more -- $3.5 million in the first seven days. Even more stats: Haiti's TOTAL population is 70 percent of Pakistan's 14 million flood-displaced humans. Phood4thot.

However this ends up playing out, I believe Obama can make some serious hay here. I earnestly -- if naively -- believe that if he were to spend the next few days emphatically driving home the point that people of all faiths are welcome to build houses of worship near their houses of sleepship, and that this is what religious freedom is all about, that he could convince a vast majority of Americans that he is right. Not because he says it's right, but because the guys who wrote the Constitution said so. But he has to be clear, forceful and he has to call out the opposition for putting themselves above the Founding Fathers. (I'm not hopeful here: he's already gone back once on his opening statement, to add that "I was not commenting, and I will not comment, on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have that dates back to our founding.")

Even so, forget for a moment that he'd be constitutionally correct in defending religious freedom. (God, do I REALLY have to write that sentence??) Consider instead that the number of non-Christian believers in this country is holding steady or increasing while the number of Christians is dropping precipitously. (Here are the numbers and the pretty charts: visit infoplease.com and religioustolerance.org.)

If he can establish that non-Christians and non-Christian believers have no home in the GOP, and let the demographics work in his favor, he and his party can reap the electoral benefits for years to come.

Although it's probably OK, in the short run, to do the right thing because it's the right thing. That's acceptable too.

Or if desperate measure are called for, Obama could always buck up and quote his predecessor, who, somehow, once said this: "Al Qaeda's cause is not Islam. It is a gross distortion of Islam."

If Bush were president today, and my brain just died a little from typing that, I'd like to think we'd hear him spout something similar. Something like: "Well, um, if Al Qaeda wants to build a mosque dedificated to worshipping terrism, and they want to, uh, build it two blocks from Ground Zero, then I say, Nuh-uh, No Way Hossein. Now them Musslems, theyk'n build whever they wanna. That's Merica. Land of the brave, home of the free, and all that, y'know."

That's probably enough for now.

(Although, honestly, there are so many other angles to take on this issue.

A) Why should peaceful Muslims pay for the sins of hateful terrorists who desecrate the name of Allah with their actions?

B) What's next to be politicized and debated? Trial by jury?

C) What is the significance of Ground Zero, and how are the various political forces using to their benefit? And is this OK?

D) Scapegoats are forever.

E) How is it possible that the party that defecated all over habeas corpus and now freedom of religion continues to be viable?

F) That's it for me. I'm moving to New Zealand and becoming a Hobbit.

Discuss amongst yourselves.)

Massacrechusetts / 1-23-10

No, I didn't work for Martha Coakley's campaign - I KNOW how to spell the state I live in, and even a few of the other ones. (What's that now you say about Tennesee?)

After Massachusetts voters replaced Teddy Kennedy this week with some dude who vowed to help tear down what Kennedy spent a lifetime trying to achieve, some despondency may be allowed among Democrats, or people who could use health care but can't get it, or people with kids, or people with compassion, or people who think the Republicans deserve more than one year in the wilderness for trying to bankrupt the country, or people with souls.

Well, I'd like to offer the mature response to losing that race. Right after I offer the juvenile one. (Notice I've already started with the juvenile name-calling portion. But on with it.)

I hate you Scott Brown! I hate you Massachusetteritianites! I hate you Martha Coakley! I hate you MA legislature for messing with the process! I hate you George W. Bush! (Just for old times' sake.)

Rage levels back to normal. Mature response in 3, 2, 1...

I. Brown will not last as a MA Senator with a hard-right agenda. He'll get booted. Ben Nelson survives in Nebraska only because he's a very, very, very centrist Democrat. Bluer-than-the-sky Rhode Island kept Republican Lincoln Chafee around for a long time because he liked to split the difference between the parties, and voters will respect that. Heck, Maine has two GOP Senators, somewow. (That last word was supposed to be "somehow," but I like the typo better.) So if Brown lasts for two-plus years - his term ends in 2012 - then it's not precisely the end of the entire whole wide wide world. He can't be a filibuster machine and keep his seat.

II. Democrats had better start fielding some decent candidates. Coakley failed to campaign after winning the primary, failed to connect with voters, took them for granted, and screwed up important stuff like Red Sox history. I'm completely serious, that's not OK in New England. Despite the fact she got herself elected AG not too long ago, she self-destructed, managing to lose a state Obama won 62-36 and where he still enjoyed a 15-point positive approval rating AMONG VOTERS WHO CAST BALLOTS ON TUESDAY.

III. This comes on the heels of Democrats losing two governor's races in November; one of those they had no business winning, that being Virginia, and the other one they had no business losing, that being New Jersey. But both times, the candidates were deeply flawed. In NJ, Jon Corzine's entire campaign seemed to be "My Opponent Is A Fat Slob," which might have been factually accurate, but was only serving the purpose of concealing Corzine's own past as CEO of Goldman Sachs... and in the throes of the financial meltdown and its aftershocks, he might as well have worn swastikas while happily sodomizing a statue of Lenin.

Over in Virginia, Craigh Deeds sucked. I don't want to elaborate. Seething might resume.

The last three Democrats to seek high-profile elected office have been complete stooges. It's really, really, really past time for that crap to come to an end. Really, Democrats? Really? Really??

IV. Some have called Brown's victory a referendum on health care. Balderdash. For one, Massachutypes already have universal health care, as set up by their Republican governor, once upon a time. Furthermore, if the President is viewed favorably by a strong majority of voters there, choosing a guy who'd clearly pledged to poke his finger in Obama's eye, that choice can't be about health care as much as everyone says. No, this was about the two candidates in the race, in large part. Of course, that's easy to say for the anti-Brown crowd.

V. Special elections are weird. Sh!t happens. The Republican dropped out and endorsed the Democrat in a congressional race in upstate NY last year. If one thinks one knows what's going to happen in one of these hastily arranged shindigs, one should rethink one's presuppositions. Just saying.

VI. It's not a good time to be an incumbent. Coakley was viewed, fairly or not, as the incumbent, due to party affiliation. Timing sucks sometime. She might have managed to eke out a win, warts and idiocy and all, this coming November. Or the previous one. Hard to say.

VII. The health-care bill was nothing special, from a traditionally liberal viewpoint. No public option, not even a public option with an opt-out or opt-in mechanism for states. No employer mandate. Lots of help for the poor and uninsured, but kind of a bummer for folks who don't want coverage. Granted, forcing insurers to insure everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions, that would have been a step in the right direction, and a journey of a thousand miles begins with blah blah blah cliche blah blah blah (I'm such a piss-poor bad Taoist right now), but the bill was extremely incremental. To lose it sucks, but we're not dismantling Medicaid or anything drastic along those lines.

Wish I could say I felt better. At least I feel more grown up.

(I apologize profusely for the total lack of links in this post. I'm trusty. You can believe me when I say there are no glaring factual errors here; I saved them all for my other posts.)

Ten Free Predictions / 9-22-09

No charge.

Events are predicted in order of occurrence, with numbers reversed because I'm a bit of a weirdo.

10. Health care reform will pass, without a public health insurance option, but with a mechanism to activate government insurance if certain conditions are met.

9. You or your significant other or one of your siblings will get H1N1. You/He/She will spend a day in bed then be fine.

8. The Seahawks will finish the year 8-8, "tied" with the 49ers atop the NFC West, except San Fran will win the division lamely on a tie-breaker.

7. A major cell phone provider will fail and be gobbled up by a competitor by early 2011. (I'm looking right at you, Sprint. And glancing sideways at you, T-Mobile. And wishing it were you, Verizon. Bite me, at&t.)

6. The Dow Jones will reach and surpass its former closing-bell peak of 14,164.53 sometime in the fall of 2011.

5. The Mariners will reach the 2011 World Series. No further details provided at this time.

4. Barack Hussein Obama will coast to re-election as President of the United States of America. Coast, I tell you. Reverse Reagan '84 style.

3. The Republican Party will split in half sometime in or after 2013. A chain reaction will ensue, culminating in the split of the Democratic Party and the emergence of the Green Party as a non-negligible political force. Five parties are in our future. Don't try and stop it.

2. A major terrorist attack on par with or exceeding the carnage of 9/11 will take place on American soil in the teen years of this century. Tragically, we may have to get used to one of these per decade, as our government continues to do nowhere near enough to stem the tide of anti-Americanism.

1. Some time after 2030, retired government officials, prominent scholars and brilliant political scientists will converge on Philadelphia for a Constitutional Convention during which they will update the Constitution to ensure its survival in an age quite different than 1787.

I was bored / 9-14-09

To call this post half-baked fluff would be a compliment.

I've lived under eight presidential administrations. (I was born two months before Nixon resigned.) For fun, and to pass time instead of cleaning house, I thought I'd rank the Chief Executives using extremely subjective criteria thay may or may not be relevant and may or may not be fair and may or may not be accurate. Blogging's great in that judge-jury-executioner way.

Anyway, Presidents received grades out of 20 in five cleverly named categories:
Overall Performance re: EConomy (OPEC)
EFfectiveness in FOreign RelaTions (EFFORT)
LAsting Legislative Accomplishments (LALA)
Fiscal, INstitutional and Environmental Responsibility (FINER)
LEadership, Inspiration, Accountability (LEIA)

I started each President off with a 10 in each category and added or subtracted for accomplishments or massive fubars; maximum grade in a single field is 20. Total score is out of 100. That works out nicely.

I considered more than simply my uninformed gut and spotty memory. But just barely. Oh yeah, the criteria.
OPEC: Were there recessions? Long periods of uninterrupted growth? Was the country's economy better off in general after that president's service ended?
EFFORT: Did the administration advance the ideals of freedom and democracy in an effective and generally non-belligerent way? Were conflicts focused, short, and relatively bloodless? Was new ground broken with an important ally or rival?
LALA: I realize that's Congress' job. But was the President able to assert himself enough to affect policy in a substantial and positive way for future administrations? In other words, was he able to do what he set out to do?
FINER: Were the budget, the deficit, the system of government and the land itself handled with care or disregard?
LEIA: How loved/unloved was the President during his term and upon leaving office? Was his administration clean or disgraceful? Did his Presidency exhort Americans to be a better people? Is he generally respected or admired or ridiculed several years after exiting the office?

With all that being said...

8. George W. Bush, score 13 (3/3/4/0/3)
Basically sucked everywhere. Broke lots of things. 13 might be too high.

7. Nixon, score 35 (6/15/4/9/1)
Not exactly an A-plus either. Left Vietnam, visited China. Plenty of other well-chronicled problems.

6. Carter, score 38 (4/4/8/13/9)
Bah. Overmatched by the job.

5. Ford, score 50 (9/13/7/12/9)
Not exactly a lot of variance from the starting 10. Not much time to distinguish himself. Or embarrass himself, for that matter.

4. Reagan, score 56 (10/18/6/6/16)
Moral: It helps a lot to take down the USSR. Covers for some serious failures.

3. Obama, provisional score 62 (12/16/10/8/16)
Provisional. Incomplete. Did not finish assignments. Yet.

2. Clinton, score 69 (17/16/12/19/5)
Not allowing bin Laden to become, well, bin Laden, would've helped. Also, not pardoning the phone book on his last day, not lying under oath... brilliant otherwise.

1. George H. W. Bush, score 79 (14/19/13/18/15)
Probably the best President since FDR.

House of Palin / 7-4-09

Sometimes I feel like the last two years have been the golden age of U.S. politics.

We elected a black man president after he redefined campaign finance strategy. He defeated a woman for the nomination of his party, a party which was left for dead seven years ago but now trounces the opposition at every turn. Unthinkable deficits, brought on by the worst economic crash since the Great Depression, threaten the administration's overdue plans to reform health care and fix our broken energy policy. A Senate race that gives one party a filibuster-proof majority took eight months and several recounts to complete. As two wars rage on, you can look out and spot three bogeymen on the horizon: terrorism, climate change and Social Security.

And then there's Sarah Palin. In her persona, we have ourselves the most polarizing, unpredictable, riveting, intriguing, flabbergasting, compelling train wreck of a gifted politician since Ronald Reagan.

So when Palin, in her mavericky way, announced on Thursday her resignation from the governorship of Alaska, effective in three weeks, the Internet almost broke.

Theories explaining her stunning decision have cascaded online in waves of millions. There are a few that are gaining traction, best as I can tell. They are:

a) She thinks resigning is a good move politically; why waste time governing a piddly state when you can be a national figure at the time of your party's greatest need?

b) Criminal charges are coming. (Try this one or any of these on for size.)

c) She's got some personal troubles or family troubles to attend to, and she'd rather do so as a private citizen. (Substance abuse, even greater family dysfunction, blackmail, grave illness all spring to mind.)

These theories have merit. In fact, why not two or three at once? This is, after all, Sarah Palin we're talking about here. But, in boring fashion, I'm simply of the mind that she's like everyone else: she's cashing in while she still can.

Faced with a job with little security, intense public pressure and a looming mega-crisis (Alaska's future budget woes are said to be on par with California's), who wouldn't be looking for something cushier? And what if that cushier job paid in the millions of dollars annually? And involved soaking up gallons of love on a daily basis from adoring fans? And getting to say the mavericky things you always wanted to say but didn't, out of what little self-preservation you had?

Yep, Mrs. Palin is bound for a good old-fashioned ka-ching payday. Or five. Her book advance is -- cue the violins -- a paltry $7 million. Her potential radio audience should rival Rush's. She'll always automatically have a job with Fox News and a hundred speeches lined up on the lecture circuit at any given time.

But like I said, just because she's takin' it to the bank, that doesn't exclude a) or b) or c) from earlier on. I'd even expect one or more of those scenarios to play out. She probably would envision herself as a tested, wiser outsider in the 2016 presidential primaries. She probably has broken various laws as governor. She probably has plenty more personal drama up her sleeve.

I could write five hundred words on her incoherent, oddly puerile resignation letter, posted here. I could spend another five hundred discussing the political strategy and timing, or lack thereof, she exhibited this week. I could write five hundred more on how I personally feel about her. (Since she and I are such great friends, yeah ya betcha!)

But I'm not sure she's all that complicated, and I'm not sure it's really a hard choice for her to leave the difficult job with the decent paycheck for the undemanding job with the filthy salary. Would that very same choice be agonizing for any of us?

Rush to Power / 6-12-09

I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that there is a dearth of volunteers for post of "Hey, I run the Republican Party!"

(Insert joke about taking the helm of the post-iceberg Titanic.)

If I were an ambitious Republican, I would consider exile. I would govern my state or represent my district quietly and stay the h*ll away from radioactive politicians.

So nobody should be surprised that IN AN OPEN-ENDED QUESTION, Rush Limbaugh was the most cited name when REPUBLICANS were asked to name the person who speaks for their party.

No surreptitious tricks by left-leaning dirty pollsters here, asking poor confused GOP folk to choose necessarily between Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney, Teddy Roosevelt, John McCain, Michael Steele and Limbaugh. No letting Democrats choose the R's leader (although they did select Limbaugh too, so we can all agree on something for once).

No no, this radio personality was the top vote-getter for national leader of a major party. Times are tough for conservatives. (In the interest of full disclosure, Newt tied with Rush and Cheney was right behind in third place. Not sure if that makes anything better.)

In the same questionnaire, zero percent of Republicans named George W. Bush as the party's voice. That seems odd, but within the realm of believability. Still, zero. Wow.

Hard at Work / 5-19-09

Sometimes, the party out of power works just as hard as the party in power.

Like today. The Democratic-controlled Senate wasted its time passing a bill that protects consumer rights from predatory practices of credit-card companies. From now on, banks won't be allowed to send bills as little as 14 days before their due date, nor will they be able to retroactively raise interest rates, or charge you a late fee if your payment due on a Sunday or holiday arrives one day late. Among other things. Those are just the highlights.

Not to be outdone, top Washington-area Republicans, including party chair Michael Steele, gathered at a luncheon to debate passing a resolution calling on the D's to rename their party the "Democrat Socialist Party."

Good work everyone.

Almost random politics potpourri / 5-12-09

I still spend plenty of time on fivethirtyeight.com, even though polling is at a virtual standstill since THE election.

So when I found this nugget there, I had to spout off.

As you can see, whites were somewhat of a drag on the Obama ticket.

That's not trenchant analysis from yours truly, to say the least. You have eyes too. But what's telling is that once you remove the 2008 variables from the picture, the near future starts to look quite bleak for the Republicans. Between 2016 and 2024, the Democrats are likely to nominate a white candidate; after all, they tend to do so most years. A white candidate, presumably, might not suffer from the exact same sort of prejudice BHO faced last year. And let's say Obama doesn't self-destruct and historians continue to condemn Bush for the abominable job he did in the Oval Office. And if the candidate's Hillary, think "historic election" all over again. So to recap: Less racism + Obama coattails = Democrat coasting to victory.

(Oh wow! Look at all my unhatched chickens!! One, two, three...)

And then, in a not-too-distant election year, nonwhite voters will begin to outnumber white voters. 2040, 2042 and 2044 are good candidates.

So in my fantasy world, the GOP has a mini-window of 2024-2040 to regain the White House. Yes, I understand that the presidency is not the end-all of American politics. But not having it for, oh, decades -- that might reduce a party to a great deal less relevance than it currently enjoys. (I use the term "enjoy" loosely. Liberally, if you will.)

It's entirely possible, then, that come 2024, every voter under age 50 will only have W. as a frame of reference for Republican presidents. Ouch. If you thought 23 percent of the population self-identifying as Republicans was bad...

So I happen to think that a marginalization of the GOP is a good thing for the future of politics in America. That's because I'd really like to see the Democrats break up... whaaa?

"John, that's not really what you mean. You call yourself a Democrat. Your beliefs line up pretty well with those leftist SOB's. You're just saying that for effect."

Ah, but I DO mean it. We are a centrist country. We don't need the balance of power to swing from guys like Dick Cheney to Nancy Pelosi. I just don't believe that's healthy. What we need is a centrist party.

My evil dream scenario goes like this: R's become the party of the white angry male evangelical and assorted random humans. R's stop winning elections. D's consolidate power in all three branches. D's infight until the party splits. New party in the center, the Liberty Party, is king of a three-party system and builds coalitions with reasonable members of the two leftover radical parties. When health care needs reform, Liberty Party members can negotiate with the left and push something through Congress... when states' rights or gun ownership rights are threatened, they can work with the right.

Oh yeah, this Liberty Party is an amalgam of the dozen or so good facets of the current Democratic Party and the three or so good qualities of the GOP. More on it later. When I'm not suffering from the blogarrhea you just crawled through to get here, I'm working on an America 2050 post. I need to write it before I'm a 75-year-old cranky old fart living in 2050.

Specter dispirited with GOP / 5-3-09

And now, for something completely different: some half-baked political analysis!

A couple things come to mind regarding a certain Senator's party switch. (I speak, of course, of last week's decision by PA Republican Arlen Specter to become a Democrat.)

First, the guy may well have done it for self-preservation, as he admitted himself. That doesn't change the fact that a party that loses moderates is going in the wrong direction. We'll see if this move causes the GOP leadership to reach out more to the center or to move even further to the right. (Assuming that's possible.) In any case, I'm going to write a massive post on the plight of the Republican Party later this month. But that issue needs a lot more mulling first.

Second, the hidden effects of Specter's reDemocratification may be greater than the obvious ones. He'll vote to advance many bills and appointments forward in the legislative process, even if he ends up voting against the bill or the appointment... which will move Obama's agenda forward quite a bit faster. Civics lesson: The U.S. Senate can approve a bill or a presidential appointment by a 51-49 vote, but the minority party can vote against "cloture," or against ending debate, and thus prevent a vote from ever taking place. (The Democrats did this plenty under W., who then just pushed his judges through in recess appointments anyway.)

So a committed group of 41 Senators can block whatever they want for a while. But Specter's defection leaves the R's with a scant 40, which will not be enough when Al Franken is seated later this year as the D's 60th Senator. And Specter is in an enviable position in his new digs. He can vote for cloture with his caucus buddies, then vote against the bill itself and campaign next year on his moderateness. With Obama's promised endorsement. In a state where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by 1.2 million, yes, million.

(Bonus point: Both of Maine's Senators are moderate Republicans. Keep an eye on them. Just saying.)