Tag: bipartisan

*

An Independent Senator From a Northeast State Expresses Joy at the news that the Democratic President and Party is less Popular in the Polls Because The Independents Who Voted For Him….  Don’t Feel “Cared About.”

The Hill, April 14, 2010

Minutes 9 thru 11:15 on video

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-…

“There were a lot of people, particularly Democrats, who were declaring after the 2008 election that we were beginning a period of Democratic dominance that would go on for decades,” Lieberman said during an interview with the conservative Newsmax magazine.

“Now, all of a sudden, the momentum is with the Republicans. And that’s –  thank God –  that’s the way people have spoken, you know? That’s our democracy.”

*

*

Q. The Obama administration is saying to the world, If you attack us with biological or chemical weapons, we will not attack you with nuclear weapons first if you don’t have them. What does that say to our enemies who might want to wipe us out ?

Appropriate ambiguity up to now….    We reserve the right to use nuclear weapons …. if the attack was bad enough.

I prefer that ambiguity.  I don’t support the change the Obama administration has made.  Like swiss cheese, full of holes.  There are plenty of reasons the US could find a reason to respond.

Bottom line,  I want any nation thinking of doing anything as extreme as to attack America  to fear we would respond with a nuclear attack.  I hope we never get to that point.  I want our enemies to be uncertain and afraid.  

*

*

Q. Should President Obama have dropped the term “Islamic Extremism ?” What do you make of that ?

I don’t like that change.  I don’t understand it.  I think it’s fundamentally dishonest.  I don’t think it gains anything I think it loses us some support in the Muslim world.  The fact is, we’re not in a war with some nebulous group of violent extremists, ah

we not in a war with environmental extremists,  white supremist extremists,  we’re in a war with Violent Islamist Extremists and Terrorists.

the people who attacked us on 9 – 11 were not just violent and extreme,  they were motivated by an ideology of Islamic extremism,  which took the religion of Islam and essentially transformed it into a radical political ideology.

(video minute 4)

and if we don’t call it what it is, first up, we are violating the first rule of war for thousands of years:  Know Your Enemy.

Secondly, how do you defeat your enemy unless you describe what it is , and 3rd, in many ways it is an ideological conflict between one set of values and this violent Islamic extremist ideology.  Most people in the Muslim world reject this, but if we don’t say there’s a difference, between most Muslims in the world, and the violent Muslim extremists and terrorists,  we disrespect most Muslims, and I don’t think we gain any favors from that .  I think that our enemies …  must be laughing at the word game, and our friends can’t be encouraged by it.

*

*

Time to use military force in Iran?

time to have plans ….. when we say it’s unacceptable for Iran to go nuclear.  

next step is tough sanctions… to hurt.   …. last chance before using force.  This is a turning point in history. If we allow Iran to go nuclear the world becomes unsafe for everybody ….  all the work, it’s over. The chance of peace between Israel and Palestinians is over.    

*

*

Oh, and the former Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin?

You underestimate her at your peril, says the Independent Senator.

“Everybody should listen.”

*

*

http://www.mercurynews.com/top…

4/13/2010  Contra Costa Times

Palin’s speaker’s contract found in dumpster with other shredded documents at Cal State, Senator Yee had sought them in public disclosure request

” In addition to the bendable straw and Learjet that Palin required, the contract also stipulated that she be picked up at the airport by SUV or black towncar; that her name be registered at (an upscale) hotel under an alias; that autographs not be allowed; that all photographs be taken by a professional photographer; and that personal cameras, cell-phone cameras and any other recording devices are to be turned off wherever she is.

…. A representative of WSB (Washington Speakers Bureau) or the Speaker”s party will open the water at an appropriate time….   ”

“It is truly shocking and a gross violation of the public trust that such documents would be thrown away and destroyed during a pending investigation.”

The students, Alicia Lewis and Ashli Briggs, submitted the documents to the attorney general”s office Tuesday to buttress an investigation already underway into whether Cal State Stanislaus violated the California Public Records Act.

“The linkage is absolutely intertwined,” he (Yee) said. “It”s like having a fundraising operation in my Capitol office.”

*

*

Sarah Palin Raises Over 12 Million Dollars Over 9 Months Since Leaving Office Last July- Whoopie !  

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seat…   Seattle PI  4/13/2010

It was at the logging conference that Palin denounced as “a bunch of snake oil science” scientists’ studies linking climate change to emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. She also denounced California’s Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has taken efforts to curb emissions.

*

*

“Since we all wear clothes …. and women wear most of them, I thought I could use my love of fine apparel to promote a fashion line which real Americans would find uplifting, something that would strengthen America’s foundations. ”  

– Sarah Palin, April 2010, source, Huffington Post  

*

what the handlers must be thinking:

Thanks, Joe, for the referral !  Those kids didn’t need cheaper college tuition anyway.  

Today in America there is a big and under-reported issue.  There are actually people out there, some of them unbelievably in Congress, crazy enough to challenge that great American institution, the military industrial complex.  Who doesn’t love Halliburton?  Or Dick Cheney?  Or the Iraq War?  Or useless projects that do nothing more than enrich and empower an already powerful and rich elite?

I’ll tell you who.  65 good for nothin’ Congresspeople.  They’re the ones who today voted against a symbolic resolution to get our troops out of Afghanistan.

Now, cutting the snark, so many of the other 356 don’t even have the gall to vote against a symbolic resolution to end a war!  I understand that some people honestly support it, but when less than half of the country supports the war in Afghanistan, it’s a bad sign that all of these Congresspeople still do:

An article in yesterday’s Washington Post reveals that the roots of public dissatisfaction with the recent SCOTUS decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission run deep. As the paper’s own polling reveals,

Eight in 10 poll respondents say they oppose the high court’s Jan. 21 decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending, with 65 percent “strongly” opposed. Nearly as many backed congressional action to curb the ruling, with 72 percent in favor of reinstating limits.

The poll reveals relatively little difference of opinion on the issue among Democrats (85 percent opposed to the ruling), Republicans (76 percent) and independents (81 percent).

The results suggest a strong reservoir of bipartisan support on the issue for President Obama and congressional Democrats, who are in the midst of crafting legislation aimed at limiting the impact of the high court’s decision.

The Roberts Court unfortunately reaffirmed that corporations have the same basic freedoms and rights to free speech as do individuals. The sordid history of corporate personhood began in the late Nineteenth Century and has been a contentious, divisive issue ever since. With the rise of corporations and multinational conglomerates, corporate personhood has never been far from the public consciousness.  A series of rulings over time have revealed the depths of the debate.

Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas both rendered opinions attacking the doctrine of corporate personhood. Justice Black, in a dissenting opinion, concluded,

If the people of this nation wish to deprive the states of their sovereign rights to determine what is a fair and just tax upon corporations doing a purely local business within their own state boundaries, there is a way provided by the Constitution to accomplish this purpose. That way does not lie along the course of judicial amendment to that fundamental charter. An amendment having that purpose could be submitted by Congress as provided by the Constitution. I do not believe that the Fourteenth Amendment had that purpose, nor that the people believed it had that purpose, nor that it should be construed as having that purpose.

(Hugo Black, dissenting, Connecticut General Life Insurance Company v. Johnson (303 U.S. 77, 1938)

It remains to be seen whether this bill will be signed into law, or, assuming it is, what its greater impact will be.  The recent ruling has just now taken effect and no one at this point is certain what liberties corporations might take or intend on taking in this year’s election cycle.  Furthermore, the Obama Administration and the Roberts Court have not yet taken highly antagonistic positions with each other the same way FDR did with the Hughes Court back in the 1930’s.  However, it must be noted that FDR’s New Deal lead to the enactment of a variety of reforms and Obama has only managed a paltry sum in comparison.  A majority desperate to minimize its losses would do well to start here.    

As proposed while still a candidate, President Obama’s version of bipartisanship envisioned a kind of Utopian ideal where reaching across the aisle would be a frequent gesture, not just an occasional product of odd bedfellows.  My own interpretation of the concept is not nearly so pie-in-the-sky as much as it is practical in theory.  Of course, I never expect to see it implemented because legislators hardly ever do anything practical these days, in theory or not.  My modest proposal would seek to level the playing field between parties, particularly on a state-by-state basis, since even though running up the score might be satisfying to some, everyone at heart loves a close game.  True party parity would certainly strike fear into the lovers of the status quo and the current office holders themselves, but the past several months have proven to me that many of the current batch of bumbling idiots are long past their shelf life and need to be thrown out altogether.  

Though a handful of so-called purple states exist in this country, most states give primary allegiance to either one party or the other.  As we know, the South is usually reliably GOP by default and the Northeast usually Democratic.  I recognize that due to recent electoral decisions we know that this is not always the case, but taking into account the whole picture, this statement is largely accurate.  The battles we fight with each other these days are partially a result of how we have dug in, trench warfare style, facing across an literally invisible, but still nonetheless highly perceptible partition.  Purple states are certainly more prevalent now than at any other time before in our history, but their development is relatively slow and since government is indebted most strongly to historical precedent, particular when one observes the tortured and convoluted congressional and state districting schemes, the blue state/red state divide is still very much with us.  Indeed, I cannot for the life of me envision a point where it will give way to something else altogether, though I would certainly rejoice if it were.

When any region or state calcifies around a particular party allegiance, competition for available seats is minimal and new blood rarely gets the chance to serve the people.  In both red and blue states, running for elective office often requires one to wait for an existing Representative or Senator to die, whether they be in the State legislature or the U.S. Congress.  While I of course recognize that my allegiance to the Democratic party is paramount in my affections, I also know that true democracy rarely makes any headway with de facto lifetime appointments of any legislative body.  That sort of arrangement is for something else altogether and if we are to preserve the checks and balances of our Founders, we would be wise to start here.  The bipartisanship I strive for would be something close to equality between each state party in representation, redistricting, and in funds.  Even putting one of these proposals into effect would make a difference.  To be sure, I don’t deceive myself.  This would face stiff opposition from all sides and even if it were seriously considered, likely not much would come of it.  Still, we need to at least contemplate resolutions like this, even if they may not be workable in reality because they are the only way we’re going to be able to begin to get the system to work for us, not against us from here on out.

One of the many ironies is that one would think that Republicans would embrace this plan, since it falls in line with their pro-private sector, pro-capitalist ideal.  In a pure, unadulterated capitalist system, competition and innovation is essential to the success of the market and the economy.  What’s good for the goose must surely be good for the gander. Surely the GOP couldn’t find much objectionable in this, my most modest proposal.  Even so, many entrenched GOP movers and shakers would counter this suggestion by substituting term limits instead.  To me, however, term limits would be a poor substitute and be far from effective, which is why I have always opposed them outright.  If one never changes the political landscape of a state or a region, all term limits would really do is hand the baton off to another person of the same stripes and ideological identification.  In that case it would merely be the latest example of “meet the new boss, same as the old boss”.      

If we really could manage something close to legislative and party parity, then it would be much easier to hold the feet of politicians to the fire.  Certainly they would have to worry more about losing their seat and undeniably they would need to pay closer attention to constituent needs, but I don’t think either of those outcomes are a bad thing.  As it stands now, we have a still-majority, veteran Democratic caucus in the Senate who seem quite content to place its own needs and priorities above those of the average American citizen.  If every Representative or Senator, regardless of party, recognized that unless Congress or any state legislative body produced clear cut legislative success that they were likely to no longer have a seat, then I daresay we probably would see some real reforms for a change.  If members of both parties had to fear being booted out on not just or or two but every election cycle, we wouldn’t see a constant tit-for-tat between Republicans and Democrats, nor any of these exasperating back and forth power swaps whereby the party in power obtains majority status purely by capitalizing on the mistakes of the opposite party, not by actually doing anything to win control based on merit.  A drawback in this system would be that it would be easier for competent elected representatives to be swept out based on the irrational demands of an angry electorate, one much like the Tea Party members prevalent now, but much of life is some combination of luck and chance and why should politics be any different?        

If we are a massively diverse plurality society of differing and competing points of view, I see more, not less gridlock and more demoralizing legislative defeats in our future.  Arguably a lack of across-the-board equality in so many different areas is responsible for everything from crime to bigotry.  We have underscored and articulated the problem time and time again and have gotten no further to really going after the real causes.  Doing so would require unselfishness and sacrifice, of course, two qualities that are always in short supply.  But what I do know is that we can’t keep doing the same thing we’ve always done and expect a different result.  I do believe in the power of reform, but I do also recognize how change often is a product of desperation and last-ditch-effort; I don’t want things to get that bad before we really act.  I’m not sure how much more dysfunctional our government needs to get before we adopt new strategies that will return power to the hands of an informed citizenry.  The system failed us, certainly, but we are supposed to be the ones whose active hand in the proceedings puts us and everyone back on course.  How we do it is not nearly as important as when we do it.  I hope that day is soon.      

Crossposted at Daily Kos

   Honestly, this is just flat out pathetic.

    Cardboard caricatures of “Sir Tax a lot” and “The Debt and Deficit Dragon”, ala Senate Republicans and Ranking Senate Finance Committee member Chuck Grassley are not only ridiculous but is a slap in the face of every American who takes health care reform dead serious. Further, it is proof to three facts that are undeniable at this point.

1.     Bi-partisanship with the Republican party is NOT to be taken seriously anymore, if it ever was to begin with.

2.     Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus and Sen. Grassely are flat out jerking us around.

3.     If Health Care Reform fails, or is FUBAR, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should be the one who suffers our wrath.

    More below the fold, and a call to action.