Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Sunday, January 30, 2011
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.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
The Most Reasonable Man in Washington
This is a great review of last night, I, however, was a little angry at the lack of progressiv
"Especiall
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,
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,
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, January 7, 2011
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.
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)