Rss Feed
Tweeter button
Facebook button
Technorati button
Reddit button
Delicious button
Digg button
Flickr button
Stumbleupon button
Newsvine button

Posts tagged with Poli-tricks

0 comments

2:13 PM

A Study in Contrasts

(or Why You Should Vote Republican)

As Republican-Independent-Libertarian-Constitution Party Oregon State Senate candidate Marilyn Kittelman emphatically declares, “The Choice Couldn’t Be More Clear”:

(emphasis mine)

That settles it for me, I’m voting against that burgling, raping, home invading, career politician Floyd Prozanski (or as some like to call him, that Democrat Floyd Prozanski).

I’m not actually, influenced politically by this mailer sent to my home on a Saturday afternoon.  I’m kind of befuddled though.  Doesn’t Marilyn’s campaign know the “tough on crime” meme is most effective when you give the criminals a name, a la Willie Horton?

Emerging from the mist of a settled Health Care Reform, we’ve watched a movement get loud, angry, violent, and we’ve watched them get nothing done. I speak of the Tea Partiers, teabaggers and pseudo-populist rage-fomenters that comprise such groups as the Tea Party Patriots and Freedom Works. I speak of the same absurd minority protest group whose numbers are constantly dwarfed by immigration rallies, anti-war rallies and pro-health-reform rallies but whose media presence implies a greater significance than any other movement that exists, past or present.

At this point however, when the Tea Partier’s cause celebre – preventing America from obtaining democratic reforms to the health care system – has fallen flat on its face, it is hard to distract from the fact that these folks have no real influence on policy. I don’t know if this statement can be regarded as at all controversial though, considering that it is infinitely hard to infer the policy consequences of such rallying cries as “Say NO to Socialism” or “Keep Government Out of my Medicare”…

Never mind the glaring contradictions of such sentiments when one acknowledges that this movement is fueled by our bunk economy’s bad habit of bringing innocent, hard-working Americans down with it. It began with the bank bailouts, where the policy sell was tough regardless of the facts on the ground because when viewed in the abstract, who would honestly be in favor of the Federal government handing hundreds of billions of dollars over to corporate mega-banks? Obama had his work cut out for him in trying to sell that policy after the fact, especially when one considers the immediate recoil Republicans have at any fleeting mention of the consequences of George W. Bush’s 8 year debacle, but now that the taxpayer has recovered nearly all the money that was spent on the TARP bailouts of 2008, populism is in favor of the Obama administration.

Shortly after our country fully realized that we have a bona-fide Black President, we began to realize the political and legislative potency of that President with the passage of a historic economic stimulus package. The facts more than a year later reveal the positive impact of the stimulus, with hundreds of thousands of Americans put back to work, state governments helped to stay afloat, and tax cuts offered to 95% of Main St. America. Apparently this all threatened the egos of Republicans and Tea Partiers alike because nothing says I’m confident in the strength of my ideas like calling the opponent Hitler.

Then came Health Care Reform, the legislative priority that dominated the protest signs of teabaggers for the next year and will likely continue to exist at the forefront of anti-government activism in the year to come. All these agitations by the Obama Administration, these efforts to realign the priorities of the government from top to bottom, these audacious attempts to stave off the inevitable courses as set by the most powerful moneyed interests in the years prior, these actions incited the most virulent conservative activism in the last few decades.

The NYTimes profiles some connected figures in the Tea Party network, and the narrative that was sparked by cries against socialism and big government contrasting the ever present, supported, and oft-lauded role of government in these folks’ lives continues seamlessly. In my mind, one has no ground to stand upon to protest big government while accepting unemployment benefits, Medicare, Social Security or any of the other completely non-controversial, popular and necessary programs. This shallow margin by which Tea Party rhetoric has made its way into the halls of Congress is necessarily shallow. To delve deeper into the political discourse of the teabaggers, one must overlook the logical gaps of arguments that are created by the emotions of a populist reaction to economic uncertainty.

But that glaring hypocrisy is not a concern for much of the Tea Party movement. Principle and integrity of political arguments be damned, because these people are pissed! They are entitled to their government handouts, but fuck anyone else who tries to balance the scales. Fuck anyone else who has found themselves a victim of machinations larger than themselves. Fuck anyone whose woes lead them to vote for Democratic candidates or to support Democratic platforms. But to what avail is all this resentment being levied?

Rooting out government waste and spending taxpayer money more wisely is not some new idea that the Tea Party owns. Being against totalitarianism and facism isn’t new, but for christsake only the most paranoid and conspiratorial among us would actually buy into the notion that this Health Care Reform is even related to those despot regimens. Not trusting the notion of government is not an excuse for being completely and utterly irrational in one’s rhetoric. In fact, when such sentiments of paranoia and fear are allowed to prevail in political movements the result can be nothing but more paranoia and fear. As we’ve seen, the Tea Partiers and Republicans could not thwart the democratic will of the electorate or the administration to reform our health care system. But what have they done?

I can’t honestly answer that question. I can’t produce a single tangible result of this movement, beyond the ratings boost Fox News enjoyed by creating a fictional picture of America in revolt. The Tea Party movement really has no objectives beyond trying to elect Tea Party candidates and agitate for agitation’s sake. Does anyone really know what Tea Party candidates are for? What would a government run by Tea Partiers look like? Do Republicans really have to do much to convince the Tea Partiers that they are friendly? Would a Republican administration or a Republican congress just give in to the demands of this minute faction of the electorate simply because they are afraid of agitation from within?

I’m not trying to pose these questions or ruminate on this subject to salt the wounds created by Health Care reform becoming law, but because I think that any political movement needs to justify its existence in no uncertain terms. And they need to do it constantly. This isn’t a call for more delusional rhetoric to stir up the passions and prejudices of the tea-baggers, but a call for this movement to grow up and try to dispel the facts surrounding their inadequacy. I say this because I’m tired of the rigor that is applied to criticizing liberal politics and liberal movements not being applied to these Tea Partiers and the Republican/conservative ideologies that they push. This criticism is being levied not only at conservative outlets like Fox, but at similarly mainstream outlets like CNN and MSNBC who have dedicated countless hours of coverage to the Tea Party cohorts while unwaveringly ignoring other legitimate movements.

As a last aside, the Tea Parties are not doing themselves any favors by enlisting the inept former gov. Sarah Palin to be their poster child. Didn’t they get the memo that this person hurts things more than she helps things? Or maybe they really just want to ride the media coattails of a future reality TV star?

0 comments

9:12 AM

Reconciling Healthy Differences

Well, reconciling something – hopefully this time it will be the reconciling of Washington with what the majority of the electorate wants : comprehensive health care reform with at least a national public plan. I for one have had enough of the emphasis placed upon bipartisanship to pass this legislation (Tom Schaller on 538.com basically ruins the argument that bipartisanship means anything tangible here). That is why I was delighted to read this morning in the NYTimes that the health bill the Obama administration is preparing ahead of the bipartisan summit is being crafted expressly for the purpose of attaching to a budget bill that won’t be subject to minority hijacking (filibuster).

Numerous Democratic leaders in the Senate have expressed their willingness to use the budget reconciliation process in recent days and weeks, but hold outs still exist – those who think that using Senate rules to pass legislation with a simple majority constitutes some sort of disregard for “the will of the Senate” (to borrow a phrase Orrin Hatch used to try and cast Obama as a tyrant over the move to use recess appointments to break the Repub’s stranglehold on his nominees).

On top of all this, it shows that there is still a damn good chance that this bill will be revitalized and removed of certain detrimental give-aways that weren’t meant to improve the bill but rather to gain conservative votes (of which zero were gained).

Monday should be the day that we see exactly what sort of health care bill Obama thinks should act as a jumping off point to pass with a simple majority. I’ve seen many articles on this reconciled bill that seem to cast doubt upon whether or not Democrats have enough votes to pass a comprehensive bill through reconciliation…but I think these folks are forgetting that the Senate bill passed with exactly 60 votes in December, and the House passed a much more progressive piece of legislation in the fall with 220 votes (including 1 republican).

0 comments

10:57 AM

Move On, Evan Bayh

So the latest thing to shake up Washington’s frail bones is the news that a conservative blue-dog Democrat from Indiana is not going to seek re-election. Sure, he had an easy 20 point lead over his nearest Republican contender in prospective polls, but the man just has got to be moving along.

What is the problem here though? It seems like from the way people are already reacting to it, that something inconceivable is happening. But really, he is a 2 term Senator – 12 years! Let him go. He has been in Washington too long already.

I’m no fan of political dynasties. Bayh had a certain edge in his pursuit of national politics, as his father was a notable Indiana political figure, which many pundits and pollsters are already saying makes any other Democrat’s chances of winning in Indiana in November slight. But fuck that. For the first time in more than half a century there will not be a single Kennedy in Congress. Yet, we continue to bemoan the electoral downfalls that occur when political dynasties end. The people who comprise these dynasties may indeed be high caliber statesmen and women, worthy of their service to our country, but I refuse to consider the political dynasty as an inherently good characteristic of any government.

There is something to say about political/congressional veterans, those who know how the machine works, in their ability to help grease the gears of legislative agendas. But is that information that cannot be communicated to someone new?

I’m the type of partisan who likes my party’s goals, but lordy do I hate my party’s tendencies. We exalt the virtues of participatory democracy, but somehow that only extends so far. For one thing, why don’t Democrats support Congressional term limits? The logic applies wonderfully to the executive, and the public implicitly accepts that as good for our country. So why does that logic not extend to the Congress?

That is what I mean by how I hate my party’s tendencies. If they ever came out to support term limits for Congress (I have no idea how much/what portion of the public would support this idea – any polls out there?), their whole electoral strategy would be flipped on its head. Political party’s love incumbents. There is no way to hide that fact. But do incumbent politicians do any better for those who elect them than freshmen would?

While I’ve got you on a tangent, I predict that the only way for a Congressional term-limit system to work would be within a public campaign finance system. Maybe that would be the way to get the Dems/Repubs behind this, to ease their purse string concerns over how expensive it would be to elect so many less incumbents. That seems pretty realistic to me though, especially considering how the gridlock and partisanship of Congress has become “common wisdom”.

0 comments

4:13 PM

Health Care Populism

According to a new Washington Post/ABC news poll, 63% of Americans want comprehensive health care reform.

Note that even 42% of Republicans want comprehensive health care reform.

I’m really shocked by these numbers – 63 % of the public still wants comprehensive reform – when you take into consideration the tepid support that Congress has received from the public over the last year in regard to health care reform. Here is the result of a poll conducted in July 09 by the same pollsters, showing 54% of the public supports the legislation in Congress (which included at the time, a public option) :

It remains elusive to me, the logic used by Republican congresspeople and pundits to oppose health care reform which always rests so firmly upon their perception of the public as being completely against anything resembling the current legislation. As well, many suggest that the Senate bill is just too messy and advocate that the only way forward is to “start over”. From an FOXnews interview with House Minority leader John Boehner… Keep Reading »

0 comments

10:26 AM

60 votes shmixty votes

Robert Gibbs is right now feeling the pressure from ABC’s Jake Tapper on why Obama needed to go through an executive order to establish a “debt commission”. Tapper is harping on this fact that because of Republican filibuster threats, Democrats in Congress are forced to try and secure 60 votes for even non-controversial legislature, but Tapper keeps trying to frame this as evidence of Democrat’s and Obama’s inability to govern. As Tapper says “you guys control the House and Senate – why are you not able to make the tough decisions?”, Gibbs continues to smile and returns to the President’s message prompting the minority party to help try and solve problems rather than secure political victories.

This dispute between Tapper and Gibbs in still going on, Tapper seems to draw the conclusion that a piece of legislature’s inability to garner 60 votes must imply that this is bad legislature (using the debt commission as an example). I guess it is easier to ignore the realities of legislating and making good policy when trying to corner the Press Secretary – this would have been a much more poignant interchange if not for Tapper’s insistence that the problem is  Obama’s unwillingness to “man-up and make the tough decisions”.

For spending about 10 minutes on this in the briefing, I don’t think anything of substance was communicated to the press. Tapper secured some sound bytes, maybe a small quote about the WhiteHouse’s view of politicking, but that is about it.