Learn the lessons

Since the American people are not the smartest when it comes to voting, and since it is inevitable that over the next 2-4 years the Democratic majority in the House and Senate will decrease or possibly end, I hope that the party of FDR is taking notes on how to run a successful opposition. While the Republicans did not manage to stop the health care bills that crawled through both houses of our legislative body, they did manage to strongly influence both the eventual law and the public perception of the majority party.

Without casting a single vote in its favor, the minority managed to get over 160 amendments added to the senate health care bill and push the resulting legislation far to the right of what those of us who voted for "hope" and "change" wanted. The health insurance bill that Obama signed into law was a far cry from anything the late Ted Kennedy had strongly advocated for all those years that he was in office. It was a far cry from anything Representative Dennis Kucinich could support with a clean conscience. And it fell far short of what the country needs in order to say we have substantively improved our health care system.

One of the reasons was the failure of the Democratic leadership to fight back against the minority's talking points, and their fear of being seen as partisan after the GOP made such a big deal of how post-partisan President Obama had promised to be. But in this sad tale there is at least the redeeming element that perhaps a lesson can be learned. The party of Nixon and Duke Cunningham has shown that if you play the game correctly, 41 senators can be almost as powerful as a super majority. They have shown that withholding money from our soldiers in times of war can be done for political reasons without repercussions. And they have shown that despite years of leading the charge to kneecap the public insurance plans that exist today (Medicare and Medicaid) it is still possible to pretend to be its stalwart defender in order to confuse voters.

So I hope that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Steny Hoyer, and Tim Kaine have been taking notes because it probably won't be too long before they will be counted on to oppose Speaker Boehner, and senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, and when they do, I hope they can do half as good a job at getting their way.

Dumb Voters: The Real Problems Behind Citizens United Vs. the FEC

Just as hurricane Katrina and the recent earthquake in Haiti have exposed deeply rooted problems in New Orleans and the Caribbean nation, so too has the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United vs. the Federal Elections Commission exacerbated the problems of money in politics. While saying that money in politics is bad might sound good if you're standing on top of a rented pickup truck to a crowd of tea-baggers, the truth is that running a campaign, especially a statewide or nationwide campaign, cost a lot of money.

A lot of that money goes towards legitimate expenses like money for offices, phone lines, electric bills, travel costs, and most importantly, pizza and caffeine for campaign volunteers. That money also goes to pay salaries for the paid staffers, who have left behind other jobs to devote themselves completely to the campaign. They don't always get a lot of money, and if the campaign finds itself short on money, they might get a few IOUs instead of actual paychecks, but that's fair because they are putting in long hours and doing a job that probably can't be trusted to the college interns. Finally, a distressingly large amount of campaign cash goes to "pollsters" and "consultants."

Firms like Mark Penn's Penn, Schoen, & Berland Associates LLC are among the recipients of large amounts of campaign dollars. They ran up millions of dollars in bills for Hillary Clinton's failed presidential campaign, going after Obama even when the end for Hillary was in sight. But still, to say that Mark Penn is the problem is scapegoating, pure and simple. The problem isn't that people think up the stuff that wins voters, it's that voters are so ill informed on the issues that big spending can tilt the scales and win an election.

If the American people were well enough informed on the issues facing the country, then all the billions of dollars in corporate America wouldn't mean much. But because of our ignorance and our apathy, a few million here and a few million there make a big difference come election day. So, due to our inability fulfill our responsibilities as citizens of a democratic republic, the Supreme Court ruling, that will allow unlimited corporate money to pay for ads for or against any candidate, will further the problems of money in politics.

Greetings

Hello Blogospere,

I've thought for a while now about creating a blog and jotting down my daily anger from watching, almost religious the 3 cable news channels. I try to catch all the big shows, from the 6 o'clock curmudgeons like Lou and Britt to the shout happy Chris Matthews, and the always caring Anderson. I even watch the frenzied ravings of Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly as well as the dementia suffering Larry King. Last but not least of course is the ever tough talking Keith Olbermann who survives due to the ever-presence of Bill O's insanity.


Through it all we get the asinine opinions of the political pundits whose canned speeches truly exemplify what "party hacks" are. They're the perfect target for anyone to love to hate because what they say is so full of nonsense and they are so often asked to comment on things they have no business talking about - just watch the next time FoxNews asks Karl Rove to discuss the problems facing Obama.

So, I hope you will enjoy the posts in the coming months as we ratchet up for the November election and get fed shit-filled bowl after bowl in the news channels' attempts to do as little journalism as possible.