MWMB: God Goes to School

MWMB returns, now that I'm back from Vacation. This week we talk about why Minotaurs make the best pets for Republicans, touch on Michelle Bachmann, take a few pokes at Weiner and then settle in for a discussion of Separation of Church and State.... the Rutland Herald,of Vermont reported last week that the class valedictorian reported he was not allowed to deliver half of his speech because he was not able to publicly thank God for his academic success. He said that the Law and not the school was to blame. So I guess that casts me in the roll of Godless liberal...

It Could have been better, It could have been worse

Alex's Blog-

It's about midnight, and I just returned home from the DFL Victory rally downtown. All in all, mixed emotions...on the local level, Kim Norton and Tina Leibling are returning to the Minnesota House...but we lost two great public servants, State Rep Andy Welti and State Senator Ann Lynch.

My main hopes for the night, however, seem to have been fulfilled...no Emmer, no Demmer (my wife has remarked often how much that sounds like Dumb and Dumber...). Our Congressman, Tim Walz will be returning to the US House...despite the fact that big GOP groups (or, more accurately, small groups of big donors) dumped a ton of money in to the district to try and unseat him. The word's not in yet, but it also looks like Mark Dayton, DFL, will be our new governor.

And, on the national level...we've kept the Senate.

Of course, we lost the house...and sitting through John Boner.....whoops...Boehner's speech was painful...the media now says he was trying not to cry...but I'm wondering if he was trying to just get his lips around one too many scotch and soda's.

In the end, the fact that the Republicans have now taken control of the US House may be the silver lining...in two years, assuming that the White House finds a communications team that can find it's ass with at least one hand....the American people will have seen that these guys and gals don't have a clue...there will be no jobs...a lot of hair brained schemes to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans...and the stimulus programs will be cut...I think that, by then, the American people will realize that they have been had. We'll see...but that's my guess...and I'm willing to put money on it: Tonight's results will see the Democrats back in the White House in 2012.

POSTSCRIPT: And it just gets better...they say that there is a movement to draft Michelle Bachmann into the leadership....LET HER AT IT, I SAY! She'll do for the GOP what Christine O'Donnell did for masturbation.

Taking the Democratic Party Survey: Why I am a Democrat and Why I'm Currently Discouraged.

I have been getting TONS of email from national Democrats, asking me for money, asking if I've seen the President's latest You-Tube video, asking me for money....

Today, I received a survey asking me to share my opinion on the current state of the Democratic Party...since there was a place for long answers, I filled them out...and then decided to post them here, because A) this was the one place that some random web surfer might read them (I know they won't get read at party headquarters) and, B) because heaven knows it's time for a blog post.

So here are my responses.


How would you describe the current political climate? (Optional):

As a Democrat, I feel demoralized. In his first days in office, President Obama appointed two tax cheats (a Democrat who cheats on his taxes is just as bad as a Republican "Family Values" man who cheats on his wife.) Timothy Geithner felt like part of the same Wall Street Gang of thugs who got us into this mess in the first place. Then, the President was a month overdue before responding in a major way to the Gulf Oil Spill. He has done a lousy job selling his program, and when Democrats point out the missteps taken by the White House and ask them to please try and do better, they are told to "Stop Whining" by Vice-President Biden. So, the current climate: Grim and Uninspiring.

What do you believe the Democratic Party stands for? (Optional):

I think that's in flux right now...but here's what I think the Democratic Party SHOULD stand for:

A strong America.
A debt-free America.
An America that MAKES things again.

The Democrats know that, with the proper oversight, Government need not be an enemy. Instead, as long as our government remains free and open, it can be a powerful tool. Allowing groups of ordinary people to band together to create something larger then themselves (examples: The Space Program, Victory in World War 2, the Interstate Highway System, the Transcontinental Railroad, etc.). Government, again, kept under proper restraint, and driven by groups of activists, is also the only tool that has achieved the civil rights of the American People (The end of Slavery, the Enfranchisement of Women, the end of segregation.)

In times of great need, Government has successfully served as the great engine which restarts the economy...getting us moving again following the Great Depression, providing the needed economic mobilization to triumph over fascism. While these are the large examples, this pattern has been repeated in smaller crises throughout the century.

The Democratic party knows that, in order to create the conditions of prosperity and stability, taxes are necessary. Democrats know that the upper class may occasionally meet with success solely by their own efforts, but are more often aided by the efforts of their workforce, the public education system, the public police system, the public transportation infrastructure, the national defense, and, often, by doing direct business with the government.

Because of this, Democrats know that these people deserve to pay more in taxes, to support the society that supports them so well.

Democrats know that money taken from the top, and reinvested in the bottom creates a rising tide that raises ALL boats, not just those of the few...and brings financial growth and benefit to a greater portion of society. (Their prosperity, in turn, allows them to be customers of the rich...helping them well from this too.)

Democrats value and respect the entrepreneur. They understand that his vision and energy are a key part of the driving force of our economy. At the same time, they know that he is not the God-Like Figure imagined by Ayn Rand and her supply-side disciples. True Entrepreneurs thrive in an environment laced with infrastructure: Transportation, Police, Education, Energy, workforce. Because this successful businessman achieves success in aworld which has been tamed for him through the efforts of his fellow citizens acting together as a government, it is also understood that that self-same business person must pay to support that infrastruture. Not being a god-like figure, the entrepreneur is not to be placated by deferments, and releases from his obligation to provide support for the infrastructure without which his success would not be possible. Unlike Ayn Rand and her modern followers, Democrats do not heap sacrifices from the public treasury in the form of tax breaks at his feet.

Democrats know and respect the worker's role in economic success. Democrats also know that, by keeping the working class prosperous, a larger customer base is established, and the seeds of further economic growth are put in place, seeds which the business owner will harvest.

Democrats understand that, human nature being what it is, those who have money will seek to keep as much of it as they can. They will share no more with their workforce than absolutely necessary. They will voluntarily contribute to the infrastructure that supports them almost nothing. They will favor short-term profit over long term growth. Democrats understand that, while free market capitalism is the best way to run a successfull society, that it has an Achillies Heal. Left to its own devices, the free market will tend to stagnate, concentrating success and wealth in the hands of a few. Left in it's natural state, the only way to bring change is through periodic catastrophic failure. To avoid both the stagnation and concentration of wealth, which leads to tyranny of the few over the many, and at the same time to avoid economic catastrophe and devastation which leads to periods of anarchy, terror and hardship, Government is needed to bring stabilty....while it does tend to remove the highest of the high points (enjoyed only by very few), it also reduces the lowest of lows...and that helps the population as a whole.

Democrats should know that they need to be fiscally responsible...keeping the national account square, paying as they go, breaking this rule only in economic emergencies (such as the present crisis), and returning to normalcy as soon as possible.

The Democrats know that people often need a helping hand to lift themselves up. That children need a good education to rise in the world. At the same time, Democrats have come to understand that welfare should be a hand, not a handout, and that while there are no limits to our desire to help, there are limits to the amount of help we will give to those who will not help themselves.

Democrats know that this country must become as self-sufficient as possible, and especially in the area of energy.

Knowing that there is no one magic bullet that will replace foreign oil as a source of power, Democrats are ready to apply the power of Government to fund R & D that is not yet attractive to the private sector in search of the short term sure profit.

Democrats understand that these efforts will pay off in a big way, giving America a commanding lead in the renewable energy field, providing us, once again, with a a product to sell to the world, reversing our negative balance of trade.

Democrats should never be ashamed to be America. Democrats should never shrink from defending her. At the same time, Democrats know that "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" and that a foreign policy that, while always serving to advance American interests, does so with fairness and a a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.

Why are you a Democrat? (Optional):

I am a Democrat because I believe in a strong America. I believe that this nation should offer both political and economic freedom to all. I believe that the Democratic Party's record on the economy for the last 80 years speaks for itself. Economics, practiced with a Keynesian bent, has created a wide-spread prosperity in all segments of this society. Supply-Side economics has concentrated wealth in top 1% of our society, during the years (from Reagan on) that supply-side economics have been in the drivers seat, we've seen this nation become a debtor to the world. We have seen our manufacturing jobs move overseas. We've seen government have to ride to the rescue of the Savings and Loan Industry and now the Financial Sector...all because we've removed the regulations in place that keep one company from growing so big that it crowds out the others, growing so big that it becomes "too big to fail".

I am a Democrat because I believe that,in the long run, the Democratic party has a better history of taking care of the nation as a whole (rather than of it's leading citizens). I believe the Democratic party, for all it's faults, and they are many, is a better steward of the economy and of our political freedom.

There are times when, as a Democrat, I become discouraged. There are times I become discouraged because the left wing of our party has seized control, forgetting that, while we believe in an active government with a strong role to play, we are NOT a socialist party. While we believe in a fair and level playing field, we are not a "leveling" party...we do not seek to enforce equality of outcome.

At the present time, I am discouraged for other reasons.

President Obama is a pragmatic centrist. He understands the need to use government to stabilize the economy and has done a fair job ending the free fall. The American Recovery and Reinvestment act has represented a strong investment, not only in jobs, but also in building for the future. Back in the day, people called the CCC "make work" - but today, as we enjoy our parks, roads, etc. we realize what a debit we owe to the men who worked in the program and the government who, not only saved them from starvation, but bequeathed a legacy to us. I strongly believe that some 20, 30 years hence, we will look back at the ARRA and realize that we made some good moves.

Obama's appointment of Geithner and the moves to bail out Wall Street are probably necessary, even though they leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Less excusable are Obama's constant early efforts to meet the Republicans more than half way. Screw Them....the new Radical Republican party of Bush, Gingrich, Limbaugh, Fox, Beck and Boehner have never shown the slightest consideration for us. Those of that ilk have never shown the slightest indication to wish to reason together, or compromise...they are radical fundamentalists. Their motto is "join us or die"....our motto in regard to the radicals should be: Cathago delenda est. To any others who wish to talk, then yes, we'll hold out the hand of friendship...but those kinds of Republicans are damn few and far between theses days (and the few that remain are being driven from their party by the Christine O'Donnells and Sarah Palins of the nation.)

Because of the President's need to play nice, there are those who have argued that the stimulus package was too SMALL- big enough to make Americans nervous about the debt, not big enough to create movement in the economy fast enough.

On the Gulf Oil Spill, the President was, quite frankly, on the wrong side...even before it happened. As a nation, to remain strong, we MUST break the addiction to fossil fuels. And yet the President was advocating offshore drilling off the most populated areas of our coastline.

A mere month later, the BP spill proved the folly of that approach in a major way. President Obama did reverse his drilling policy, but he remained silent on the spill for over a month, while the Gulf coast suffered.

From the stand point of policy, President Obama (far from being too far to the left, as his Tea Party critics paint him) has been, if anything, too much on the side of the establishment and big business. For the most part, I can live with this...especially since he heads a party who can tend to drift too far to the left if not properly skippered.

But in terms of shear political performance, the ability to sell your policies and vision to the people, President Obama has just not done a good job of staying out in front. His minions have even been bitter, when we, the foot solders of the party have criticized their approaches, they tell us to "quit whining"about their political ineptittude...and yet they still send me emails...up to three a day...asking me to give money to the DNC.

Well, sorry guys...but no. No little (but big to me) check for you this year. I will work with my local party to reelect my Congressman, Tim Walz. I'll work with my local Democratic party to make sure that we return our local legislators to the State's House and Senate....but as for you in Washington...no...no cash for you...not until you get your act together.

Who knows, an enemy Congress actually helped spur Bill Clinton on to great things (Welfare Reform, a Balanced Budget)...maybe having a bunch of nuts in the House will help put some hair on Obama's chest. He has great potential, but so far, he hasn't lived up to it.

The Future of Centrism

http://rip-and-read.blogspot.com/

I read a great article this morning in CQ Politics. Now that Democrats seem to hold all the cards in the Federal Level, it will be very important to keep in step with the American people...

The DLC was established in the 1980s in response to the overwhelming success of the Reagan Revolution, particularly in the South. It recognized an essential truth about the Democratic Party...that it had moved away from it's blue collar and middle class roots and appealed only to those on the far left of the American political spectrum. Since the Republican party, at it's heart, still represented the Corporate Halls of power while relying on the right-wing fringe as foot soldiers, this left the majority of Americans without a political voice.

And so, since the American blue collar worker and the middle class are largely conservative, they chose the right leaning GOP over the seemingly leftist Democrats. The DLC was formed to change this. The political landscape began to change with the election of Bill Clinton (once Chairman of the DLC) in the 1990s, and the Democratic party lurched back towards the center. Not, however, without a great deal of internal animosity, and there are large portions of the Democratic party base where the DLC is anathema. (Visit Green Mountain Daily, or the Daily Kos for a taste of this.)

"The political mission of the DLC has been largely accomplished,"
said Reed, who's had the group's No. 2 post since 2001.
"Twenty-five years ago, the forgotten middle class had serious
doubts about Democrats, and now Democrats are winning the middle
class, suburban voters, moderates by handsome margins. Our next
challenge is to deliver on that promise and earn those votes for
years to come."

On a broader level, though, the group will face the same tension affecting the entire party: the sense among liberals that “their ship has come in,” as Kind puts it — and that, as a result, the need for moderation and compromise in Democratic politics has passed. But Democrats only have that majority because they’re holding on to seats that could easily return to Republican hands. In the House, for example, 49 districts that elected Democrats were carried by Republican John McCain at the top of the presidential ticket in 2008[emphasis added].

On a separate note, it's been a while since I've made the time to visit green mountain daily...going back today and casting an eye over the posts, I realized how much I missed it!

Hemorrhaging Money: The Latest Spending Bill

Just listening to NPR's report on the latest spending bill...chock full of earmarks...which the President will sign.

I wish he wouldn't. For both reasons of style and substance, I wish he would send this bill back to the hill and say: "Try again. Fast. We can't wait."

I've written before about the massive American Debt and why it frightens me. We need to begin rebuilding- slowly, carefully, and strongly...so that the Republicans can not pull the American Government to the ground again for a long, long time.

Back in the late 1990s, Bill Clinton went toe to toe with a Republican Congress over spending and won. He also balanced the budget and began to make progress toward reducing our national dept to manageable levels.

In those moments, a subtle shift began in the minds of the American people: Perhaps the Democrats were NOT the party of "Tax and Spend" - perhaps it was the Radical Republicans who were doing the most harm by trying to "drown the American Government in a bathtub."

This shift was only partial, it will take more work to fix it firmly in American minds. As the poorly built edifice of the Bush Era comes crashing down around our ears, the American people again saw the Democratic Party as responsible enough to reverse the nation's downhill course...

That positive image of us as Democrats will NOT stay fixed in the minds of the American people if we are seen to be using this opportunity to shunt funding off to isolated groups and pet projects at a time when the entire American public stands in economic peril.

This morning, I heard another story on NPR...(It's not posted yet, so you'll have to find it yourself...I may not have all the details right, either)...one of the items in this bill is $1.5 MILLION Dollars to hire 8 people to change road signs on an Arizona interstate from metric back into the Imperial system...

$1.5 MILLION DOLLARS! To employ only 8 people.

Sorry, my fellow Democrats- but this kind of foolishness is doing the GOP's work for them.

Burning the History Books- The Right Wing and FDR

In the past couple of days, I've been browsing my bookshelves, revisiting the New Deal.

It seemed important right now to go back and take a look at what happened, particularly since the Right wing in this country has been vigorously spreading the lies that FDR's New Deal, perhaps the most successful reform in history, was, in fact, a failure.

The purpose of this misinformation campaign is to trip up President Obama in his attempts to restore prosperity to the American people...and return this country to the right track.

The Right-Wingnuts have worked long and hard (Since Reagan's victory in 1980) to strip this country of the prosperity and protection put in place by FDR.

As I continue to read about this, I find that Chris Miller, who's blog, Smart Remarks, I discovered a couple of days ago has written a nice piece on this debate...I recommend it.

It can be found here: http://blog.smartmemes.com/2009/02/a-dose-of-history/

The Wingnut Gospel: Obama will Kill Small Business

Yesterday, Media Matters, published a great article entitled "Washington Post and New York Times let Boehner revive small business tax falsehood." I encourage you to read it.

Sometimes, however, even greater insight can be found in the comments than in the article which prompted them...here are some of my favorites...

From Nerzog:

I guess the Replutocrats think that if they keep repeating this lie, the Media will stop bothering to correct them..... oh, wait, it's already happened.

The Democrats need to take it upon themselves to publicly debunk this myth as often as it takes. As media savvy as they are, Obama's team doesn't seem to realize yet that the Replutocrats own the media, and they'll have to find alternative means to get the truth past all the bullsh*t.

I particularly like the term: RePLUTOcrats....and think I shall adopt it.

And here is another insightful comment, this one from Snoopy:

My experience these last few years is that tax cuts puts more operating capital into the owner's pocket who in turn uses that capital to outsource manufacturing to china and india, thus putting even more capital into his pocket. Who needs quality when you've got 3 billion potential customers who think transister radios are awesome technology!

A great discussion on corporate vs. personal taxes took place between neon desert and nerzog . Here's the take-home:

I was under the impression that incorporation legally segregated the individual from the business, thereby protecting personal property from liabilities incurred by the business.

That being the case, anyone making >$250k/yr from their small business who hasn't incorporated should be assessed a stoopidity surtax anyway.

You said it, buddy.

And last but not least, some great advice from Col. Harlan Sanders (no, probably not THAT one):

These are the questions I keep asking the conservatives on this issue. I'm just going to copy from a recent thread;

Do you own a business? If so, have you ever let an employee go, or decided not to hire a new employee because your taxes were raised?

Do you work for somebody else who has done these things?

Do you know anybody personally who has?

Friend of a friend?

anecdotal?

Fictitious right wing email claiming to?

An example , with the essential numbers in revenues/expenses that is feasible?

Cheney2012, to his credit, at least tried to fake a generic anecdotal answer;

"I have known several business owners over the years who have SHUT DOWN completely because of increases in taxes."

What I never get is a credible example. I've owned a small business, I've worked for small and large companies, and have never seen an employer eliminate or add a job because of taxes. It's part of the Wingnut Gospel, and is used as a given, a starting point for their arguments, something that happens all of the time, but something that I've never seen a real world example of.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just asking that anybody who wants to use this as a common occurence cite some reality-based example. Maybe some numbers, some specifics on the company, where were the revenues and expenses when this company decided it was better to pass up those profits than to pay taxes on them.

I've seen taxes used as an excuse by people who couldn't run a business, maybe that's the bottom line.

Great Discussion.

It isn't "YOU"-- It's "THEM" : John Boehner Defends the Wealthy

Just remember this:

When a Republican says "You"- He (Or she) really means: "Them".

Yesterday, I heard House Minority Leader John Boehner declare, that "The era of big government is back and Democrats are asking you to pay for it".

YOU! YOU WILL PAY! YOU!

As I contemplate an uncertain world and the possibility of layoffs, these words would tend to strike fear into my heart...I AM GOING TO PAY? ME? I CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY!

But then I remember- Obama's "Tax Hike" is aimed at those people who make A QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR or MORE...I don't make anything CLOSE to a QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS a year...think of it, every 4 years, you earn a million dollars...nope, that's not "me"...

That is Not Me...and, what's more, that is not anybody I know... and I even know some people who are pretty comfortable with what they make...Doctors, Small Business Owners, etc.

So, when John Boehner points his finger straight at the camera (I heard him on the radio, so I'm imagining that part) and declaims in that big deep, stiff voice: YOU ARE GOING TO PAY!

You have to stop and ask yourself: YOU WHO?

And the answer comes back: The Wealthy.

Okay- well, that might still be bad. Don't the wealthy create jobs for the rest of us? Through their entrepreneurial energy, or at least through their mindless conspicuous consumption, don't they serve as the economic engine that takes us where we want to go?

Isn't it worth our while to appease them with Tax Cuts so that they continue to shower us with their largess?

My answer, is, of course: No.

Why not?

Simple: We are not getting our money's worth out of the rich.

It's a good theory, and very seductive (especially if you're rich...it's also quite flattering)...but it just hasn't proven to be the case.

There has been advancement, too be sure, and, until the current crises ripped the mask off, it was possible to say that a rising tide raised all boats.

But some boats rose much faster and further than others.

For most of the latter half of the 20th century, and the first 8 years of the 21st...the American people, and particularly the American Wealthy, have enjoyed some of the lowest tax rates in the world.

As a people, we have excused the wealthy from a large portion of their financial duty as citizens and, instead, have passed that debt on to ourselves in our old age, or to our children. We did this in the hopes that the wealthy will commit that money to stimulating the economy, providing jobs and raising the standard of living for us, their fellow citizens.

I would submit that this plan has not worked.

The Gap between the rich and the poor is growing, and the United States has "the highest inequality and poverty in the OECD after Mexico and Turkey, and the gap has increased rapidly since 2000."

And, as Republicans have fought to save the "Estate Tax"- they have worked to ensure that this gap is passed on to the next generation. The odds are, now, that if you are born into the lower middle class, you will stay there...and if you were born wealthy, you will die that way.

What does that mean?

It means that a poor person would have to possess almost superhuman amounts of entrepreneurial energy (and experience rare good fortune) to raise themselves to a higher level. I'm not talking about common sense and hard work.. I'm talking about Genius, and we all know that the good Lord don't hand that out on anything like a regular basis.

It means that those who are born to wealth and power will have not earned it through hard work, or intellectual ability.

It means that the United States will, increasingly, be run by people who were born in to their positions without earning either experience or wisdom.

I would offer my opinion that this does not bode well for our democracy, OR our economic system. As evidence, I would offer the current banking crisis...this can certainly disabuse us of the notion that the wealthy are smarter about money than the rest of us.

By going along with this Republican plan, we, as a people, have paid a great price...and we are passing an even greater price of debt along to our children.

A few days ago, I wrote about how the Republicans used the cry of "TAXES BAD" to tempt us into this mess...

And now, to borrow a phrase from the man who set us on the path, Ronald Reagan, we can point to Mr. Boehner and say: "There you go again....."

We can't afford it this time.

So, if you are slightly panicked when you hear John Boehner say "YOU" just remember-- he isn't really talking about you. He's talking about "Them" and we've let them have enough. The experiment didn't work, and it's time to put this country, and ALL of us, back on the right track.

In Which We Reach the End & A New Beginning: Election Day, 2008.

Election Day 2008 is history, and WOW! What History it is! An awe-inspiring milestone for our country. Throughout this election, I haven't given too much thought about the role of race except when it became a campaign issue. Personally, I would have voted for Barack Obama if he had been purple with bright yellow spots....he was the right person at the right time.

But as I sit here this morning, still trying to take it all in- I am amazed to think that the day has come when part of Martin Luther King's Dream has come true. Yesterday, the nation as a whole overwhelmingly judged a man based on the content of his character, rather than the color of his skin.

ONCE MORE UNTO THE BREACH

It was back to DFL Volunteer Headquarters yesterday for one last day of door knocking. Minnesota has same-day registration so there is a potential set of would be voters who may not have made up their minds even yet to vote. The Olmsted County Democratic-Farmer-Labor party was out in force yesterday to persuade them.

In the mid-afternoon, I found myself in Stewartville...about nine miles outside of Rochester. This little town is evocative of hundreds of small towns across the nation...in some ways, it seemed there was no more appropriate place to be yesterday than right in the heartland of the country.

My partner for the day, Diane and I kept working on into the evening. The polls didn't close until 8pm- so if there was a chance we could get one more person out to vote for Obama, Franken, and Walz- it was worth knocking.

And there were a few great moments. In Stewartville, I met a woman coming toward me talking on her cell phone: "Sir?" She said to me, "who are you campaigning for?"

"I'm out for Obama, Al Franken, and Tim Walz- DFL!" I said.

She spoke back into her phone: "Yeah, that's what he said. Walz and Franken. Yeah...I thought I was seeing double. No. No. He's out here right now."

She put the phone to her palm and spoke to me again: "My girl-friend is a Republican. They quit yesterday." She seemed hurt. Almost as if I were cheating or something. I have to admit, I hadn't had a chance to speak with any undecided voters, but it felt good just to be out- keeping the pressure on.

"Well, it ain't over till it's over. So, we're still out today. Good Luck!"

I also met a woman who had voted already. She took great pleasure in telling me about her brother-in-law. A life long Republican, he finally soured on George W. Bush and told his sister-in-law that he had become a "Gopher" (spelled: GOPer)- meaning, a FORMER Republican. I met quite a few voters who had changed party's (at least this once) because of George W. Bush.

In the end, every single person I talked to HAD voted...and Minnesota seems to have kept it's title as the state with the highest voter turnout in the nation. Reports are that 3 million of 3.7 million eligible voters went to the polls yesterday.

When we returned to volunteer headquarters...the place had been cleaned up top to bottom-- it was amazing to think that, a few hours ago, this room had been full of food, coffee, fellowship, energy and a drive to work for this country. Now, the remaining staff and volunteers were sitting in a tired circle...allowing their batteries to recharge a bit before heading over to the Marriott and what we all hoped would be a victory party.

Endgame

And in the end...well...you know how it ended. What an amazing day for the United States of America and for our friends and allies around the world. I met so many people in England who had great regard and affection for America, but who had wondered for the last eight years what had happened to their old friends and who passionately pinned their hopes on this race. One young British lady said she literally wept for joy this morning.

This may not be a popular sentiment among all Democrats, but John McCain's speech last night was, as one person wrote on a friend's facebook page: a class act. He reached out and found what was best in America and her people. His speech reminds us that this man has been an amazing public servant and who has given so much to his country. One of the benefits of our Democratic Victory will be a chance re-express our admiration for this great American.

The hard work will begin today. We, as American's have just completed a tough and often bitter contest. I am reminded of Winston Churchill's guidelines for waging war and peace. He said: "In war, resolution; in defeat, defiance; in victory, magnanimity; in peace, good will."

In the past, when an election has ended we have not always found ways to achieve both Magnanimity and Good Will- for the sake of our country, I profoundly hope we can do it now.

Here in Minnesota, we've had some mixed results. Al Franken was trailing Norm Coleman by a mere 800 Votes as of this morning out of 3,000,000 votes cast, that is a razor thin margin. And there will be a recount.

In the sixth district, Michele Bachmann, who first drew fire by pawing George W. Bush during his State of the Union Address in 2007, and who again insulted all of America by declaring that people who didn't agree with her radical right views were somehow UnAmerican, managed to hang on to her seat despite heroic efforts on the part of the DFL to do the nation a great service and send her into political exile.

But here in Minnesota's first district, Tim Walz won handily and will return to Congress. I spoke with fellow blogger Jennifer who remembers that, when she first volunteered for the Olmsted County DFL, their offices were in an empty garage...and a grant from the state headquarters of $75 for a phone line was a huge deal. Tonight, as we gathered in the big beautiful ballroom of the Marriott, I could only take my hat off in respect to these people who have fought so hard and who have made a huge difference to their community.

As for President-Elect Obama- words all but fail me. Comments from friends have been pouring in and popping like celebratory fireworks...I'm tired, amazed, relieved, and happy. And I am so proud of the United States today.

May God Bless the United State and All Her People

A few notes on Email Exchange

As some readers know, I am part of an ad hoc email discussion group that coalesced about 5 years ago. With the exception of the man who cc'd me on the first few exchanges, I know none of my correspondents in real life.

The email group consists of a majority on the far right wing, and a minority of those of us who are either left, or center-left.

Our exchanges at first were rude to the point of verbal violence. Things were spat at strangers over email that I would be hard pressed to say to my worst enemy face to face.

In time, we began to moderate ourselves (not much, just enough so that people would not withdraw from the conversation). I've noticed in recent days that an increasing tone of civility has crept into our exchanges...not much, but enough to make me wonder what is going on...it almost seems as if we are straining to get beyond the "he is a pig"/"she's a pig with lipstick" and start trying to discuss real issues...

dare I hope?

At anyrate, in on of our exchanges, one on the right hoped I realized just how "Liberal" my party was...I decided to respond here:

M-----,

You make the mistake of thinking that I carry some great shame for being a "Liberal". The United States has had some great "Liberal" leaders...among whom we might count Jefferson, Jackson, (One might even consider adding Lincoln to this list, as well as Teddy Roosevelt- although they are on "your team" - and you're damn lucky to have 'em), Wilson, and of course the greatest President of the 20th Century (Sorry Ronnie, but it ain't you) FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy.

(To be fair, the United States has had great conservative heroes as well, including Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Dwight David Eisenhower- and while he cannot be added to honor roll, I must nod my head to Richard Nixon- not a hero, but a genius in his twisted way who left us much of value. I cannot bring myself to add Reagan to the list, given that fact that it was in the wake of his leadership that we found ourselves awash in debt- but I suppose he deserves a nod as well.)

While I agree (as do almost all Democrats) that the Free Market is the best way to run a society, I believe that that market is there to serve the people and not that the people are there to serve the market. Therefore, I have no hesitation or qualms at the thought that society (through our representatives in Government) will bring that market to heel, tame it, and discipline it when necessary.

I'm thoroughly willing to argue the merits of this...especially as I believe that this is a never ending balancing act...what worked for us yesterday may not work today...we must constantly keep thinking and correcting. Thus, "Liberals" of the 60s spend money to raise living standards...while Liberals of the 90s (like Bill Clinton) worked with Republicans (not nicely, to be sure) to reign in spending to end the deficit and begin the huge task of addressing the national debt to China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and others.

But I would argue that "Liberal" philosophy has done great good to this country. Jefferson's writings on the nature of Freedom have far outshone his personal conduct, Wilson, FDR and Truman guided this country through the greatest of wars against the fiercest of enemies...and while the Liberals of the 60s may have overplayed their hand, who can argue that Civil Rights for all Americans was an idea who's time had come?

No, we haven't done everything right, for sure...but I'm not a bit ashamed to be called a Liberal...and while you might teach me something that makes me change the way I approach a problem, I seriously doubt you could ever say anything to make me feel ashamed.....

Cheers!

Short And SweetPalin and her FRIENDS!

Here's a link - sent to me by my friend Elsie in Florida- in which, not knowing that the mike was still on- a couple of Republican prognosticators say what they REALLY think....what was that Sarah Palin was saying last night about "Democrats" who say one thing to one crowd and something else to themselves....I think we see here that REPUBLICANS are pretty good at hypocrisy!

Check it out!

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/03/peggy-noonan-and-mike-murphys-off-air-attack-of-palin-for-vp-pick-whos-telling-the-truth/

Joe Lieberman- Damn Him with Faint Praise

I've just been listening to Joe Lieberman's speech to the Republican National Convention. It is maddening to watch a one-time Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee pandering to the Republicans. (On the other hand, if it hadn't been for a certain type of "Democrat" - hell bent on Revolution, and ignoring the wide spectrum of opinion in our party- we would still have Joe Lieberman on the INSIDE of the tent pissing OUT than OUTSIDE the tent pissing IN- so, I suppose he deserves a little bit of revenge. Still, I won't be buying him any drinks in the near future, that's for sure.)

But there is a silver lining in the cloud. Lieberman, in his praise of what makes McCain different from others of his party, inadvertently exposed and underlined what makes the Republicans repugnant and resistant to the change America needs. For example, Lieberman said:

Let me, as John would say, give you some straight talk here. If John McCain was just another go-along partisan politician, he never would have taken on corrupt Republican lobbyists, or big corporations that were cheating the American people, or powerful colleagues in Congress who were wasting taxpayer money. But he did.

If John McCain was another go-along partisan politician, he never would have led the fight to fix our broken immigration system or actually do something about global warming. But he did.

As a matter of fact, friends...

And this is where it got interesting. After Lieberman praised these qualities of McCain and his willingness to tackle "immigration" and "global warming" - there was a nice long pregnant pause in the auditorium...until, perhaps, some technician finally turned on the "Applause" sign to remind these Neanderthals that they were supposed to clap.

Left to their own, the right wing would have sat on their hands to be sure.

Also, Joe Lieberman actually got the GOP to applaud some of the great things accomplished by Bill Clinton.

In actuality, a lot of Lieberman's speech is pretty good...except that he reaches the wrong conclusions. John McCain may, or may not, be a decent guy, but it is the party he belongs to, in the end, which will set the agenda- and you can tell by the places where the Republicans sit on their hands where they will, and will not, let John McCain take the country (even if he wants to go there).

Check out the New York Times for a video and transcript of Judas's oooops, Joe's speech

Palin Round Up

Just finished a round up of Palin coverage...On Green Mountain Daily, Julie Waters threw a bone to the pack with "Three Things You Need to Know about Sarah Palin". Some great comments there...this one is my favorite:

"Ah Come on... She's an ex-beauty queen besides. And an avid hunter. Member of the NRA. Her husband is some kind of fishing guide, and works on an oil rig in the off season. He races snowmobiles. It's not just about Hillary's supporters--they're going after the GUY vote. The McCain people will probably put out scratch lottery tickets as a fundraising gimick--Swimsuit editions."

This echos the sentiments over at Politico, where they point out that, while the "media elite" mock Palin's lack of experience, she has energized both the gun totin' and abortion blockin' segments of the GOP base- previously lukewarm to McCain:

"Most importantly for McCain, the two constituencies who are most energized by Palin just happen to be the twin grassroots pillars of the GOP: anti-abortion activists and pro-Second Amendment enthusiasts and sportsmen. Without these two camps making phone calls, stuffing envelopes and knocking on doors, Republican presidential candidates would severely lack for volunteers. They are critical to the health of the conservative coalition that has dominated Republican politics for a generation."

JD Ryan tosses out the observation that "we have our first MILF candidate" - if you don't know what that means, look it up for yourself, I'm not the one to tell you.

The topic has engendered an interesting discussion as well. I watched Sarah Palin's introductory speech- and my ears perked up when she praised SENATOR Hillary Rodam Clinton for putting "18 million" cracks in the glass ceiling...

...I did a double take (when a Republican praises Hillary Clinton, who, up until about 12 months ago was the monster witch of the GOP world- you just KNOW they are up to something slippery)...and saw that this Sarah Palin character was a pretty good stink bomb after all.

The temptation to score cheap points off the "other side" is very hard to resist. In this world where intelligent discourse has all but evaporated- a quick one-liner that makes your opponent look contemptible in 30 seconds or less is tough to pass up.

Many of us (males) WILL be unable to resist the temptation of VPILF comments- it's just too damn EASY- many women will spend time taking down males who make those comments...and All that Time spent on the debate over inappropriate humor will take time AWAY from McSame Bashing- which is more important.

On a related note, Sarah Palin's background is going to lead to some interesting stuff as well...tough for Democrats to resist, but which should be resisted, because of the battleground states we HAVE to win.

This is "working class" issue. Democrats sincerely have the best interest of the working class at heart, but we are often uncomfortable with the appearance, attitudes and pastimes of the working class (one might venture to guess that, as we gained the education that informs our opinions, we also soaked up a little, hummm, snobbery?)

At any rate, this picture appeared on Politco. It shows a college-age Palin wearing a very slightly risque t-shirt.


Here is another area where it's REALLY tempting to have cheap fun. The big 80s hair, the stupid t-shirt (It reads "I may be broke, but I'm not flat busted"), and just the general red-neck fantasia feeling of the photo make it all but irresistible for a certain type of Democrat. Red Meat, as it were, for Blue America... My message to all: RESIST!

Here is an interesting quote- I certainly wouldn't have thought of it myself- but it gives me pause-

Isn't that photo a good thing?
That's a real person. A girl next door who decided she's had enough and decided to get involved.
And now look at her. From that photo to this time: She took on her own party and big oil and now she could be the next VP of the United States of America.
Gee, isn't America great!
What's wrong with that photo? Nothing! She should be an inspiration for all regular people to get involved and you never know what's going to happen if you stay true to your convictions.
Staying true to your convictions doesn't mean you have to be a hardened politician. Look at her then and look at her now...she a testament to what can happen to you if you just get involved.
mike t.

This quote was buried in the midst of a heap of derogatory comments. But it is a useful to remember that many Americans will not look at this picture and see trailer trash...lot of voters will look at that photo and see somebody they know...themselves. These are exactly the people whose votes we need.

Interesting, interesting election.

PSSSSssssssfffffttttttttttttttt- there goes my chances for a fun November.

I almost feel like a traitor for writing this entry, because, so far (in all the news articles I've read) I'm the first one to bring this up (I haven't read fellow bloggers yet)...but what the hell? Rip and Read has about 3 readers anyway, and besides Republican Sharks and Corporate Media Piranhas will start in soon enough, so here goes.....


JOE BIDEN?


Woof. My heart kind of caved in today and I got all squishy and cold inside...I think we're going to lose.

I can't understand this choice at all. Biden...the plagiarist? The guy who's introduction to the national scene was cribbing a speach, word-for-word, from a British Labour leader, in which he appeared to steal the other man's life story? THAT Joe Biden? That was Obama's big secret? Holy Crap...I think I want my money back.

(Of course, he's got a cover: all the OTHER times, he attributed the quote...but just that one time...oh, yeah, and the time in law school...well, he didn't know the rules about citing sources...and then....)

Biden has made some great speeches through the years, has held the line against Bush in the Senate, to be sure, but, at the end of the day, when I hear him speak, I just wonder who's words he's using. I can't help it. And I'm a LOYAL Democrat. Imagine what the Republicans are going to do to him.

As of yet, the plagiarisms thing hasn't started, it still seems to be all roses in the national press....but you can bet your butt the Republican attack animals are going to have a field day with this.

And, while Joe Sixpack may not be very concerned about the ins- and- outs of a little law school borrowing...at the end of the day, I fear it will be "all too easy" for the Republicans to use the dark-side on this guy.

After all, Biden was not forced out of the 1988 race by Dark Lord Lee Atwater- hell, no, the Ghouls never even got a crack at him....No Sir, Biden was taken out by the vicious attack chihuahuas of Micheal Dukakis! That's kinda like loosing a fight with a pillow.

I hope I'm wrong....but it sure was a tough read over the morning coffee this morning. You see, I really wanted to win this one, and I think Obama would make a Damn Good President. But it feels an awful lot like the guy just shot himself in the foot to me.

I'm going to check some other bloggers now....maybe I've missed something (hear me hoping?)- Maybe someone has a better angle on it all....

Oh, I hope I'm wrong, I hope I'm wrong, I hope I'm wrong........

Getting the Jump on Fear- time for Democrats to act on Suburban Crime.

In a recent interview with Rick Perlstein, author of Nixonland, the National Review ( founded by the late ueber-conservative, William F. Buckley) noted that: the notion that is still prevalent among the left is that somehow Reagan and the religious right sprung from the skull of Athena fully formed in 1980 and there wasn’t a lot of movement conservatism preceding that.

Nixonland tells a different story. Barry Goldwater may have been the first to tap into it, and Governor Reagan of California may have refined it, but it was Richard M. Nixon who exploited the fear of the "great silent majority" of Americans who watched in rising panic as cities exploded in flames, crime rates rose, and the values that they had lived by, hard work, faith in God, trust in their Government were eroded.

Perlstein tells the story of an "American proletariat" who had become "middle class" and would, in the words of Stewart Alsop, "defend their property 'as ferociously as the classic capitalists of Karl Marx's day.' "

Hisotrical change had favored them, lifting them from the inner-city (or rural) poverty of their youth and into the paradise of suburbia. Average voters not only had no desire to go back, but they were terrified that the haunted inner city they had left behind would follow them into their new suburban safe havens- traveling on forced busing, in forcefully integrated neighborhoods, bringing crime and fear.

A rightward shift began, of which we are still feeling the effects today, some 40 years after Nixon's presidential victory in 1968.

As we stand looking back at the results of 40 years of Republican Rule, we note that our nation has gone from being a creditor to a debtor nation, that we have managed to loose the respect of the world, and that, perhaps most importantly, that middle class of Americans who OWNED in the 1960s is again shrinking back into the working poor.

To many of us, it seems self-evident that Democrats MUST win this election- for the health of the nation and for the health of the middle class. All things being equal, they probably would.

But the Right still has it's most powerful weapon ready to hand: FEAR.

And, in today's New York Times, and in the July/August edition of the Atlantic Monthly are to articles which describe a rising trend in America- a trend which will breed fear, and more fear...

The titles tell the story almost by themselves. "As Program Moves Poor to Suburbs, Tensions Follow" says the Times. The Atlantic Monthly is a bit more lurid: American Murder Mystery

The "Mystery" referred to in Atlantic's title is this: Why is it that, as crime rates fall or hold steady in America's inner cities, crime rates in America's smaller cities and in suburbia are going UP?

There is a growing suspicion that this is because the Federal Government, through its Section 8 housing program that allows inner-city poor to rent in the suburbs, is exporting the drug, crime and gang problems of the inner city into the more quiet neighborhoods of suburbia.

While the causes may be debatable, the problem is not. Crime rates are rising, and they are beginning to affect, once again, that "Great Silent Majority of Americans" - perhaps even more directly than they did in the 1960s when Newark burned.

Democrats are going to need to get out ahead of this problem, and FAST- before the Right Wing forces of Fear begin to own it and make it their own.

If the early suspicions are correct, that social programs have simply shifted crime from one locale (where it was contained) to another, where it is freer to infect an even larger percentage of the population at large, then Democrats are going to have to face some interesting challenges as they try to solve the problem.

We may have to face the fact that Government alone cannot provide the answers to all questions. We may have to find ways to form alliances with faith based groups, for example, who can help instill the social values and traditions that knit a community together and provide a structure. To head off fear, we may have to redefine our relationships to ideas, we may have to draw new maps to reach old destinations.

Worst of all, we may have to learn to be patient as we attempt to solve these problems...I do not say this lightly, one of the great things about the Democratic Party is that we are people who try to live our political lives as those who "who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it."

We believe in change now...the blistering fact that the dirty work of 400 years may not be undone in 40 is one that will hurt, but one which we might have to face as we fight for solutions.

One thing, however, seems certain. If Barak Obama and the Democratic Party do not find ways to address this rising problem, then John McCain (disciple of Goldwater, prophet of the Republican Age) will find a way to do it for us, and we will find ourselves living in Nixonland for sometime to come.

The Cousins' War & Nixonland

A Fourth Cousins’ War?

According to the Washington Post, Barack Obama enjoys a two to one lead over John McCain among low wage workers. But that level of support, especially among white members of the group, is not deep. In battleground states such as Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio and Florida if McCain can pry these votes away from the Democrats, he has a chance of winning another four years in the White House for the Republican party.

Many, if not most Americans, are expressing thoughts that would lead one to believe that they would not support this. My dad recently emailed me from Central Florida:

“We have a Bush Countdown Calendar in the shop” (my family runs a bait and tackle shop- just a few years ago, a calendar like this, openly displayed, would have brought about the death of the business among the hyper-patriotic working white males who also make up the majority of the fishing population- if he’s lost this group, then Bush’s halcyon days are truly over.) “Most people think it’s really funny,” my dad wrote, “but I still think McCain is going to win here. People just can’t bring themselves to vote for Obama.” My father went on to mention how people where in debt, how businesses were folding and how bad things were.

As always, I scratched my head and thought: So WHY THE HELL WOULD THESE PEOPLE STILL VOTE FOR A MAN WHO SUPPORTS THE POLICY OF THE MAN WHO THEY ACKNOWELGE HAS BROUGHT HARD TIMES AND A GREATER GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR?

We Democrats pride ourselves on being the party who fights the cause of the common man…and yet time and time again in recent years, that man has turned against our party at the polls and voted (as we see it) in diametric opposition to his best self-interest…both long term and short term.

In fact, if Rip-and-Read could chose only one question to focus on, this paradox would be that question. Why does it happen, and, how can it be reversed without selling out everything we, as Democrats, believe in? (Meaning, not to put too fine a point on it, how can Democrats regain the trust and votes of the white working and middle class while not throwing blacks, Hispanics, women and other minorities under the bus.)

I’ve always believed that the answers to most questions about the present lay in careful study of history, and over the last few years, I’ve found myself looking to history for the answer to my question.

In particular, I’ve found myself drawn to two books, each very different from the other. The authors’, too, are very different from one another. And yet I found myself wondering if they weren’t telling different aspects of the same story.

The first book, The Cousins’ Wars, by Kevin Phillips, postulates that three separate conflicts, The English Civil War, the American War of Independence, and the U.S. Civil War are actually three chapters in one long story of conflict between two opposing camps and their allies about what the words freedom and progress meant to the English speaking people of both Great Brittan and North America.

The second book, Nixonland, by Rick Perlstein, tells the story of how Richard Nixon managed to find a great silent majority of ordinary Americans who felt alienated by the Revolution of the 1960s. Nixon used this resentment to capture the solid South (which remained solid even as it shifted loyalties) and middle America and white working class voters for the Republican party. Although Nixon himself fell from power in disgrace, his political heirs, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, have picked up his mantle and managed to retain control of the White House for the better part of half a century.

The Cousins Wars tells the story of how one camp, based first in East Anglia (England) and later in New England, and then later in what Phillips refers to as Greater New England, battled against the other camp, based first in the North and West of England, and later in the states of the Old Confederacy, and finally (perhaps) in what has been called “The Sun Belt”.

Each side (both with deepest roots in the old English factions of Cavalier and Roundhead) needed to confront the existence of other peoples within the sphere of the conflict (Scots, Welsh and Irish in the case of the English Civil War; Irish, Scots, African American, and German in the case of the two American Wars.) In each war, the importance of these other, non-English, groups grew.

As I began to look at the maps of the conflicts and loyalties in Kevin Phillips’ book, I began to wonder if there weren’t parallels to what was happening in today’s politics. The Confederate States and the Union States look very much like today’s Red and Blue States…the political battle lines in the undecided states (Pensylvania and Ohio, for example) not very far from the old border line between North and South.

This is certainly not a new idea, and it’s obvious the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s reopened the wounds of the Civil War of the 1860s. But I’d always assumed that the make up of the sides (or at least of the Northern side) had changed too radically for the parallel to be taken much further. After reading Phillips’ book, comparing the charges made by Cavaliers against Puritans, Loyalists against Patriots, and Rebel against Yankee (and vise versa) I’m not so sure- the comparison may have been even more apt than I first thought.

In each of the Cousins' Wars one side embraced new economic realities, the other clung to the past. In each of the Cousins' Wars, one side tended to romanticize the state while the other saw it as a means to a more individualistic end. And each side deeply held that the other was engaged in a conspiracy to take away freedom from the other.

If a case needs to be made that the 1960s represented something very close to a Civil War in the United States, complete with violent killings, inability to compromise, or even discuss, and deep divisions within families, and communities, let alone between regions of the country, Perlstein’s opening chapter of Nixonland puts that case very well- his narrative crackles with the sounds of angry words and angrier gunshots.

As I read the Perlstein’s description of the rhetoric flung by “conservatives” against “liberals” (and vise versa), I found that, again, each side felt the other was engaged in a conspiracy to take away freedom from the other.

Kevin Phillips labels the U.S. Civil War “the final Cousins’ War”, but after I started Perlstein’s book, I’m not so sure any more. I already believed that America has been in something very like a Civil War since the mid-sixties, but I am now starting to wonder if we are not still fighting the same old fight, between the same two camps that we’ve been fighting since 1642. The great divide in American Politics which is presently costing us so much may not be entering its fourth decade, but rather may be entering its fourth century.

---

Fairwell Jessie Helms: Make Sure You use PLENTY of Nails on the box

This may sound bitter- I can't help it.

About, oh gosh, it must have been almost twenty years ago now, I caught a comedian on cable. I can't remember his name, but I've never forgotten one part of his shtick and I've been chuckling over it ever since...

I paraphrase...


"You ever see on the news when they say: So-and-So died an untimely death today?

"What the heck does that mean....an UN timely death....I'm asking you: what kind of DEATH is TIMELY, that's what I want to know. That's such a dumb thing to say, an "untimely death"....

"You wanna know what I wanna hear? Here's the news I wanna hear: " 'Jessie Helms died today and it's about goddamn time.' "

(Thunderous applause)


I've been waiting almost twenty years for that news report...but today it finally came, and it's about goddamn time.



NOTES:
Reader Sidurri commented that he thought the comedian George Wallace made the joke...
He certainly sounds like a great candidate....here's a link to a link to a interview with him on NPR around about the time at 2004 election...

Obama & McCain on Taxes: Pretty Simple Really

I read an interesting piece this morning from "Business Week" by Chris Farrell- in which he discusses the difference between the two tax plans.

The article is worth a read. However, it all boils down to this:

-

Senator McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes,[emphasis mine] almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their aftertax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts, and those whose taxes fall would, on average, see their aftertax income rise much less.

-- In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers [emphasis mine] and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise.

That is the most important thing for most people to remember. There are, however, to be fair, some interesting twists to Obama's plan. TazVox, the Tax Policy Center blog, lays out some interesting quirks of Obama's plan...particularly when it comes to Senior Citizens on a fixed income.

While very poor single seniors see a drop under Obama's plan, those with more moderately comfortable incomes see a rise, and, in another, more disturbing quirk, poor MARRIED seniors also see a rise-

On the whole, of course, Obama's plan is really the ONLY sane choice for this country...we've been trying Reagan's trickle down economics for over a quarter century...the gap between rich and poor is growing, the nation's treasure is spent and the debt is still rising, and each day sees the rolling back of middle class gains made in the years following Franklin Roosevelt's presidency...this, in turn, sees our nation grow weaker.

Scott McClellan- When Rats Write Books

I have to admit, I've been so busy lately that I haven't had time to consider Scott McClellan's newly published memoirs in which he reveals that Bush has lied about everything...wow...who knew?

However, others have been quick to form the response I would have had I been paying attention....

The neatest came from The New Republic, in a short piece written by Michael Currie Schaffer, entitled: What Didn't Happen.

In a series of mock headlines, Schaffer postulates the articles that MIGHT have resulted had McClellan been genuinely outraged by events, rather than than the loss of his job, or his desire to outrun the prosecution which (who knows, miracles can happen) might actually start putting the Bushies behind bars where they belong.

For Example:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 10, 2006--White House spokesman Scott McClellan abruptly resigned yesterday, accusing senior administration officials of misleading him about the CIA leak investigation.

Or:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 2, 2004--With President Bush locked in a close race with Democratic challenger John Kerry, his spokesman suddenly quit yesterday.

Scott McClellan, whose ties to the president go back to their days in Texas, told reporters that Bush's inability to acknowledge mistakes in the handling of the Iraq war demonstrated major deficiencies in the president's ability to be a successful leader.

In the end, of course, none of this happened and now that he's been forced out by his own, he is trying for a hero's welcome from the people he helped abuse, cheat and mislead...

One comment on the New Republic Story suggested that at least McClellan get some credit for coming clean, to which another replied: "I'd give him a lot more credit if he turned over the profits to maimed Iraqi war veterans"

That about sums it up.

McCain Confused or Worse

If you are on Howard Dean's mass mailing list for the Democratic Party, then you got this message too. Still, I think it is worth repeating and thinking about. John McCain has repeated the same gaffe several times.

The Democrats wrote:

Today, as he was questioning Gen. David Petraeus, he again confused the difference between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

At least five times as a candidate John McCain has stated that Iran (a Shiite nation) is supporting Al-Qaeda (a Sunni group) in Iraq. This is not some minor mistake, but a significant gaffe. He clearly does not understand the sensitive political dynamics in that region of the world.

The website Media Matters has been tracking McCain's habit of misstatement, going back to the Middle Eastern Trip he took with Joe Lieberman in March.

Much of the mainstream media has been ignoring McCain's linking of Shiite Iran with Sunni Al Qaeda, treating it as a simple gaffe- but the fact is that McCain has made this mistake more than once.

In the face of McCain's repetitions, it is impossible for us not to remember the post 9/11 rhetoric of the Bush Administration, in which they cited Bin Ladin and Saddam in the same breath so many times that, for the American public, the two became linked, despite the overwhelming lack of evidence to support any conjecture that they acted together.

Is McCain displaying a severe case of absent mindedness? If so, we should think twice about his ability to act as commander in chief.

But if McCain is resorting to the same kind of rhetorical duplicity that got us into 9/11 in the first place, and set us back so far in the fight against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, then there is no need to think twice...he is unfit and unworthy to serve.

And if McCain is truly unable to see a difference, then he is guilty of the same tendency that Americans have often displayed in their world view: to see only a monolithic conspiracy, where there are, in fact, cracks and divisions to be exploited.

It was this tendency to treat the Communist Block as a monolith that brought America to grief in Vietnam, and it was the genius of Nixon and Kissinger to recognize that the seeming monolith of Communism actually masked a network of fissures and fault-lines which could be used against the enemy.

It has been America's tragedy (and Iraq's as well, perhaps) that the Bush Administration has fallen into the trap (out of mendacity or stupidity or a nefarious combination of both) of the Monolithic Block.

America will need, as her next President, a person who knows EXACTLY what the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni is....and how to exploit it to bring stability back to the world.

John McCain doesn't seem up to the job.