Michelle Bachman: Liberal = Anti American

Michelle Bachman's recent political stunts made me remember the first time I saw her on TV. I have to seriously wonder who votes for this woman? The American media needs to take a look at the views of people in congress to find out if they are anti-American. This sounds like trying to find communism in the 60's, they really think Obama is linked to terrorism and are blandly calling the President and other "liberals" terrorists. Take a look at the spanking my favorite commentator gives her from 2008. After watch the commentator say that if Michelle Bachman represents American views she will move to Canada.. Even if there weren't by now thousands of clips and quotes from her out there we'd still all know she is a fringe lunatic congresswoman trying to get some media time. It's working. I don't have a problem with the Tea Party being right leaning, I have a problem with them embracing the crazies of the Republican Party.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The Most Reasonable Man in Washington

This is a great review of last night, I, however, was a little angry at the lack of progressiv­e legislatio­n or agenda. He has given Progressiv­es little reason to keep supporting him and I feel that if he doesn't move left and take a stand on a big issue the progressiv­es are going to end up staying home in the next election. I'm disappoint­ed in Obama for moving center for safety instead of left to his base.



"Especiall­y if I am at least partly right about my first worry, and those middle-cla­ss swing voters are still under a ton of economic stress in November of next year, the who-is-on-­their-side issue will weigh heavier than ever." This statement is telling about what the current economic status will do to the next election. I fear he didn't reach out enough to the every man voter and I fear that he didn't allay the fears of the middle class voter. He has something he needs to prove to America to get re-elected­, if he doesn't the Tea Party is ready to take his place.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

State of the Union: A lot more things we wish he had said....

Tonight's State of the Union address was a highly anticipated one. The political culture of America has changed in favor of the President, with a bump in the polls he was off to a running start. The President knows how to grab and hold an audience, he delivers great speeches. However, the State of the Union is also seen as unimportant by most Americans. Most people don't remember a single phrase or idea from the State of the Union a month afterward. For many, the words of the President aren't enough and hold little comfort for those facing the problems of America. So how does the President think he can fix America? Will his strategies for fixing unemployment, the economy, the deficit, and the war in Afghanistan work for the every man in this country? Will the middle class eventually feel a weight being lifted?

Now onto what he did with this speech. Obama has made Washington feel good tonight. There were many who turned in to see if this tone would change they wanted to see the hint of Partisan backstabbing hiding under the calm demeanor of civility. He praised Republicans who have come together in a rare spirit of bipartisanship after the shooting in Tuscon. There were arguments about the seating arragnement which let's face it no one cares about, but it said something. One of the things I remember back to is that when the President was running for election we heard him say he would change the way Democrats and Republicans speak to eachother, it is know a national issue of how long the two parties will continue this easy discourse and positive tone. Most in politics don't think this will last long with the looming debates ahead. I don't think this will be permanent but for a little while Congressman need to think about coming out as negative or over the top. We still see over the top in the celebrity politics but the President has led a good campaign for everyone getting along and this speech continues that good will. In the coming months they will slug it out over the debt and social policies but for the moment everyone feels good in Washington. I also feel he should have picked a fight over something. I wish he had given Progressives and Liberals something to hear.

Maintaing the tone of civility is all he really did with this speech, I wish he had done a few things here, I wish he had used this moment to really launch a progressive legislative agenda that would launch his re-election; I wish he had talked about a real plan to restart jobs from the ground up; and he could have run with this and made a Bill Clinton combeback with a big guns bill. After the Tuscon shootings many called for the President to lead the charge against guns but this has been received with deaf ears it seems. Many were dismayed by the President's lack of broad-sweeping gun control legislation. I wish we had heard that.

While reading articles before the State of the Union many discussed his need to reach out to the middle class and those affected by the recession. President Obama gave sweeping imagery describing closed storefronts and factories but there was no mention of those laid of by those stores and factories. The decline of the middle class is one of the biggest and toughest facing this country. The Mortgage crisis which has been decimating Americans didn't get a mention this year, people are still struggling to keep their homes without help from the Obama administration.
The President's verbiage seemed different and aimed at the working joe of America, he seemed less like the sociology professor and more like a guy who has to support 2 kids in a difficult economic time. I love that Obama realized that he needed to speak to these people, but unfortunately I don't think he said what he should have to them. These key issues of mortgages, the decline in the middle class and gun control, and lack of strong legislation, not being mentioned tonight will impact the Presidency.
The President did well, he fulfilled his Constitutional duty to deliver the State of the Union to the American people, however it seems there are parts he forgot to mention, the state of the union on these big issues is not clear, the state of Obama's Presdiency in the face of Republican opposition in Congress is not clear. In the Republican response we heard about cutting spending and everyone seems to agree that we need to save social security, both parties jumped on that bandwagon. He did his job and he did it well, he delivered a great speech which uplifted us, inspired us, invoked images of the great American Past and the "Future we can win". He gave us hope and brought us a little bit of change, we hope he can make a difference but I don't feel the confidence I wish I held in him. He disappointed me here, he should have said more to his base, to the middle class and he should have led this country. I don't think hope and inspiration and a civil tone are enough to solve the problems of this country,

Obama's latest numbers

This is just disgusting...

"You Lie"

Last year "You Lie" was shouted from Rep Joe Wilson at President Obama during the health care debate on the floor of Congress. Now you can see this phrase on your all over your automatic rifle bullets! This phrase will now be etched onto bullets so that your friendly murderer can express how much he hates President Obama every time he fires his weapon. Rep Wilson received millions in donations after he yelled at the President on national TV, he never made an apology, it was disrespectful and distasteful the first time we heard it. Do we really need to be reminded of what a liar the President is when a bullet is pulled out of someone's chest? This moment should be forgotten from our national memory. Joe Wilson's 15 mins of fame are up.

A ploy for power or a return to Democratic ideals?

Does Mr. Smith deserve a chance?

One of the first bills to be debated in the Senate is the Mr. Smith bill, which changes the way Senators are allowed to filibuster. This bill has been brought up with nearly every Congress, does it have a shot this time? Is it a return to the way it used to be or is it a desperate ploy for power from the Democrats after being walloped in the midterms?

Filibusters of today are used to block the opposing party's agenda, they are used as viciously and easily by both parties. This bill would bring back the spirit of the filibuster and make it less a political smart bomb. Currently you can place "secret holds" on any bill where it is completely anonymous and the senator does not have to go on record to support or defend his decision to block any bill. You don't have to show up on the floor to hold a bill, and it requires a cloture motion to break this filibuster, which means nearly every bill to pass through the senate needs a majority of 60 votes to pass. Often filibusters are used to thwart the President's agenda. This slows down the Congress and doesn't allow for movement on a bill without 60 votes for it in the first place. This noble parliamentary tradition is being abused by both parties to gain the upper hand.

The new bill would require that senators show up on the floor to filibuster a bill, during the times of Mr. Smith, a filibuster required a Senator to hold the floor as long as he holds the floor. You had to stand and keep speaking, you could not sit down, or lean against anything. You have to keep talking and your not allowed to leave the chamber for any reason. The rules about filibusters were strict because the framers did not want it to be used except for extreme circumstances. This bill also mandates that a vote is to being the second the Senator speaking gives up control of the floor. To appease the opposition more room will be allowed to place amendments on these bills, this allows more pork projects and millions of dollars to be added to any bill. To change the status quo requires a super majority which is 61 votes. These votes will be coveted with the slim margin of 51 Democrats to 49 Republicans.

This tactic has been used by every Senate throughout history but in the last 30 years it has been used more then in the 200 years, it has become corrupt and a burden to American lawmaking. Mr. Smith goes to Washington is an inspirational story, one of the early movies which made me fall in love with politics, his noble pursuit to block a bill ended being the greater good. The filibuster is a tradition from early colonial times, it deserves to be honored for it's principle. It should not be used to get back at the school bully who stole your lunch money during the last 4 years.

I like this bill, it's about time this practice was examined. A filibuster is democracy in action and it has become a policy of inaction. America should see who is for and against legislation, they should hear the debate and argue the reasons. The filibuster allows any guy who feels like he doesn't have a voice to be heard and recognized by our federal government, we should stay true to Mr. Smith. However, the ideal of the filibuster is probably not why the Democrats are pushing this bill. Democrats suffered a blow as more Republicans gained control of the House. This bill would ensure passage of many bills which otherwise might not even come to a vote. In the next few weeks you will hear Democrats saying these things, but the truth is this; Republicans now have too much control and this is a political ploy to regain power and to get more money for pet projects. Republicans also know that if this measure is passed then when they have the power over the White House and Congress they will have an easier time getting their policies passed. This is really a win-win for both parties but how much you want to bet this bill gets filibustered by Republicans? 61 votes will be hard to get especially when some Democrats don't want the bill because they know they will lose their upper hand when the balance of power shifts. This is a power ploy but maybe it's a return to the way it should be.

Progressive vs Liberal

Why is it such a dirty word?

In the 2008 primary election between President Obama and Hillary Clinton she ran as "progressive candidate". In politics, we hear over and over again democrats calling themselves progressives and many people can't tell the difference between die hard democrats and progressives. Both President Obama and Hillary Clinton were members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus within the Senate. However this group of politicians are seen and leaning very heavily left however they always still use the term progressive to describe this ideal of the outreach of government to solve the problems of the over worked, over taxed, over stressed working guy. However many in the media and on Capitol Hill refer to these men and women as Liberals which always sounds like a dirty word when they say it.
I'm not sure when the idea that the term liberal meant links to communism, extreme government oversight, and radical Federalist belief in government as the solution to all problems of America. The movement began in the early 1920's and has been raving every since. In right wing media you never really hear the term progressive to describe Progressives and Democrats it is shouted at them and used in every election to demean the Democratic and Progressive parties of America. Which one is more left wing? Do the ideals seem that different?
Why is it a dirty word well here are my thoughts on that one: The term Progressive has respect, it has idealism and it appeals to nearly every American. The reason it is seen this way is because of Theodore Roosevelt. According to the yearly study determined by a non-partisan institution Teddy Roosevelt is the 2nd best President in our history. (You can view this to the left under the link "Who's the worst President?".) He was the reason Progressivism flourished in this country, during the times the government had to declare a state of emergency due the economy crashing in 1929, people wanted and needed their government to step in and help them. People saw government as hope. Teddy Roosevelt also passed "The New Deal" which even to this day is seen as the most amazing step in the government helping out the "little man". In this time even this legislation is seen as government overreaching and hand-outs, since this progressive movement started flourishing among the populace of America the Republicans needed something to combat this image of a Superman government.
Since Teddy Roosevelt Republicans have opposed this movement. Republicans are all about smaller government and state's rights, they trampled all over this movement and even to this day loudly argue over many of these policies. The reason they can do this and get away with it is that Democrats themselves see it as a dirty word, they allow this name-calling to become real. Hillary Clinton also gave a speech during her campaign where she declares she is a liberal and proud to call herself that, for this move I give her credit, but she also has the reputation for being hated across the isle and she had to own this title. It gave her competition less ammo and it gave respect to the concept.
We will always see Conservative shouting down Liberals, but the ideals they are really against are the popular and life saving policies of Teddy Roosevelt and who wants to call him crazy. This viewpoint will probably never die, and Republicans will always use it to fire up the base of the party. I'll probably always wonder why this phenomenon exists in politics. I don't consider myself Progressive, but I admire the ideal and the strength of will and pure political genius which passed Teddy Roosevelt's "New Deal". However, I believe, this was in a time of dire need of the people of this country, they needed to be taken care of by our government and many people in our country still need this help. This is proven by the current recession and unemployment numbers, we still need it. I can't say that the government taking care of its people is a bad thing. This issue is respect, Progressives and Liberals need to own their titles. They need to change the way both terms are seen in this country and then maybe the opposition will turn into understanding.
Why is it a dirty word?

JIb Jab's " So Long to ya, 2010"!

What happened to the Tea Partiers?

Two years ago we elected a President who everyone knew would project change, however President Obama has made a lot of political enemies, one of which is the Tea Party movement. We heard a lot about them in the previous two years. Many have risen to be stars in the Conservative party, some had to have their 15 mins of fame. But only a few people are asking why weren't they more influential in this past November election? Have they risen and fallen or are they biding their time until they can get the White House?

Populist ideaology is how many people described this small grassroots movement. Populism is a term as defined as "sociopolitical thought that compares "the people" against "the elite". This age old conflict is at the heart of our Conservative and Democratic ideals. Democrats are often thought of as "the elite", they have worked hard to get the vote of the average man. Conservatism has been a party of "the people", many Republicans admire President Bush for being a down-to-earth kind of President, he was the average joe. The Tea Party name is symboloic of this ideaology, the name itself conjures images of our Revolution, the Stamp Act, the high tea taxes and our status as a colony. Even if you don't subscribe to the movement itself, personally I admire the term "sociopoliticial thought" in that description. Tea Partiers started popping up all over the country only a few months after the first few rallies and protests. The ideas spread rapidly and soon this small group of protesters became thousands all over the United States.

Tea Party movement: a brief history. A central platform idea among them is that taxes are too high and they feel no one is listening to what they have to say. This idea was mainly formed by the bailouts of banks and industries, there was a lot of opposition to that bill and the movement showed up at the right time. One of the earliest rallies formed by blogger Keli Carender. She used the conservative media to increase awareness of the protest against taxes. Fox News helped to generate participation from the Republican base. 1,200 people gathered for this event. Supporters started talking to the base when websites started popping up and viral videos began showing up in the media, a facebook page was created. Popularity grew and soon there was the first national movement event staged in 12 cities and they gained powerful supporters. You can't talk about the Tea Party without mentioning Sarah Palin who became a political figure and then a political celebrity. Her visibility in the campaign extended her fame, and she became the darling of the conservative right. They started to become very influential in Congress for the large donations and continued political rallies. From these protests, rallies and media coverage, rose a few members who embarassed the movement. During the 2010 midterm election they had raised enough money to be influential in many campaigns, every candidate supported by the contributions of the movement has been Republican. What was the Democratic reaction all of this: I like the quote from Presidential advisor David Axelrod "I think any time that you have severe economic conditions, there is always an element of disaffection that can mutate into something that’s unhealthy."

The Tea Party movement was effective in getting their candidates elected. 48 members of the 112th Congress were elected from Tea Party donations, while this seemed to have a strong hand in creating this congress, many were incumbents in the House. One of the men elected through this PAC was the current speaker of the House, and the second he took the oath of office, he was threatened by the movement. "As you get down to work, there are a few things to remember. You did not become Speaker because America suddenly fell in love with you or the Republican Party. You became Speaker because America, led by the Tea Party, repudiated Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the party of socialism," Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation. This week the congress will probably pass a bill which increases the national debt by billions of dollars. This is exactly what the Tea Party movement doesn't want, the party was founded on getting rid of high taxes and government spending, and the Republicans are going to do just the opposite. Can they have strong influence when even Republicans don't hold up their ideology?

Lastly if you care to know my thoughts on the subject: In regards to describing the Tea Party to my boyfriend I told him that they are bascially "The people who are supporters of Sarah Palin for President". I'm not sure how her decision to leave her office of Governor of Alaska hurt or helped a possible presidential campaign in 2012. An interesting point to make is that the entire purpose of grassroots politics is to whip up your base in that respect they exceeded expectations. It seems now their view has shifted once they became a political action committee (P.A.C.). They recieved large donations which kept pouring in, this money went to many Republican candites. I was surprised that after the negative press from some members of the group, the die hards only got more crazy in their opinions. It is no question the media played an important role in advertising for this group, this I think speaks loudly to the bias of news networks. They made a sensation out of a few protests. They embraced the crazies on the far right. There were those who took the ideas too far and attempted to smear and ruin people's lives. I feel there should of have been stronger condemnation of these people, instead there was only 3 hours of coverage on Fox News. I think the Tea Party movement had great ideas to start but they were corrupted and sensationalized, I'm not sure what the future of the group is, I don't think we have heard the last of them but we will have to wait until 2012.

What people don't know about politics: Everyone Lies

Everyone lies:

Al Franken's book "Lies (And the Liars Who Tell Them)" takes on the Bush administration basically saying every Republican on television, including the President, was lying to everyone about everything. He's right, except everyone in politics lies. Politicians have to lie, the American public is constantly feeding it's addiction via news outlets which report on everything that seems important,

and it's only America's indulgence for voyeurism and conflict that allows these lies and projections to exist and to spread amongst the public.

Websites like FactCheck.org need to exist to allow Americans to see past these lies. Unfortunately, most people in politics are going to lie in order to get votes, in order to win, in order to beat the other guys. People in politics lie mostly because they believe it themselves. The more insidious reason (what most people believe) is that they lie to get votes. I repeat: everyone lies, and the most common reason for lying in politics is to get elected. Smear campaigns exist because they work; negative campaigns work. Why do these lies spread and seem like the truth, or, even worse, become the majority opinion among the general public? This question is what every politician asks himself when caught in the middle of a scandal. Politicians spin the truth to make their opponent seem worse, and make themselves the obvious choice in an election. “Spinning” allows both political parties access to think tanks who will show you evidence that what they say is true. Another misunderstood thing in politics is that you can find evidence to support any position you hold and want to attempt to make other people believe. The trick is to know what to believe, and in politics people will believe what they will no matter what evidence there is to prove otherwise; that's why they call it a belief.

Is an omission the same as a lie in politics and should be considered a lie by the public? This is one of the most frustrating things about politics. Most Americans believe omission is a way to hide and bury the truth. I think it's a necessary tool to get things done, however the need for power will often skew the motives of those in politics. "People don't elect a man in a wheel chair" is what is said about Franklin Roosevelt, who ran a world war from his wheelchair. If Roosevelt had to be President on TV he would be blasted and possibly even impeached for hiding and omitting the truth about his health. People don't doubt that this man was a great President, he served more years in the Presidency then any other man in that office; however, in today's society he would be ridiculed, investigated, embarrassed and smeared for lying to the American public in order to win an election.

“Checks and Balances;” everyone knows this concept, which is a foundation for our government. We believe if the Congress investigates the President then he cannot lie or omit and if he does, the truth will be discovered by this prestigious body seeking the answers for the American public. These hearings are full of partisan agendas and therefore can not be seen as a body of truth but more a body of corruption and greed for power. Investigations are run to discover the lies of the White House, and a committee of Congress serves this purpose. Those lucky enough to sit in this committee are generally chosen by the opposing party, and the majority of members are the most bloodthirsty, hardcore, diehard haters of whoever is in office at the time. Our government is not based on trust, the founders did not want the branches of government to trust each other and, to an extent, they didn't want the American people to trust the government either. We are supposed to ask questions; when these questions become the tools of enemies to attack each other for the sake of winning, the institutional memory of checks and balances becomes an excuse for the lies.

There are many people who will never run for office because they fear becoming a target for this kind attack. Politicians hide things, obfuscate, deceive and attempt to make you afraid of the truth. This opinion will never die because people don't trust the truth; even if the truth came screaming down from some higher power, there would be those who doubt it. The ideals of America were founded

on participation in our government. I think it's sad when people maliciously attack and smear men and women who raise their hands and say "I want to make a difference, I want to lead, I want to help govern America." I think anyone who defies the opposition and is on the side of truth is a hero.

How do people get to the truth? How do people see all sides of an issue without being misinformed? How do we see the difference between the honest politician and the lying one? People need to answer this question for themselves. If a lie changes one mind, if it spreads and becomes truth, then it was worth it to those who told that lie. In a small way people don't want to and sometimes can't handle the truth about politics which is why they'd rather get their news from a “talking head” then go to a town hall or a debate. They trust news outlets and political celebrities about the serious issues facing our country. Everyone in politics wants power, everyone in politics want to hold their office for as long as they can, everyone in politics has a skeleton in their closet or a lie on the record somewhere. Everyone lies and the strongest foe is information. Everyone tells you what they think you want to hear and they want to influence the most minds with their version of the truth. Franklin D. Roosevelt was a great President who lied.

Everyone lies.