Republican Politics and Reality

The mid-term elections will be coming up in just a little over a month and the TV attack ads are ratcheting up. All manner of Tea Party rallies are out there raking in money to finance assorted right-wing craziness and the personal spending habits of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. And now the Republican Party has unveiled its "Pledge to America." I have perused it and frankly it reminds me a lot of Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America" of a few years ago. As I recall, a lot of us referred to it, more realistically I'd like to think, as "The Contract On America."

Just for the sake of clarity, let's review what is included in the Republican "Pledge to America."

1) The Republican Party pledges to keep tax rates absurdly low on the richest 1% of Americans. That would be millionaires and billionaires. This is despite the fact that doing so will increase the national debt by several hundreds of billions of dollars.

2) The Republican Party wants to roll back regulations on big business and Wall Street. This is despite all evidence that points to the fact that lack of regulation is part of what caused the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930's.

3) The Republican Party is in no way, shape, or form prepared to insure the future of Social Security or Medicare. This is despite the fact that millions upon millions of elderly Americans are dependent on both to insure their health and livelihood. Apparently, if you're rich you don't need either, so therefore you don't believe anybody else should either and you damned well don't want to pay for their retirement or healthcare. Tell it to my grandmother.

4) The Republican Party is in denial about any links between fossil fuels and global warming and are not prepared to do anything to stop or slow down the process. This is despite real scientific evidence that we are creating eco-disaster.

5) The Republican Party is not prepared to pay for repairing or updating our crumbling infrastructure. That would mean tax dollars, and they are against paying taxes. This is despite the fact that investment in our infrastructure is necessary and doing so means creating jobs for our citizens.

6) The Republican Party is apparently against any government spending whatsoever, unless it is for salaries for Republicans and for any and all military projects. They seem to have never met a military expenditure that they didn't like.

7) The Republican Party wants to repeal the recently enacted health care laws. This is despite the fact that millions of ordinary Americans are benefitting from affordable health care because of this reform.

8) The Republican Party would like you to believe that returning to the same tired old Trickle Down Economics nonsense and corporate giveaway policies will benefit America. Sure they will benefit America, but only a small part of America, really rich America. Everyone else will continue struggling.

To be sure, what the Republican Party is advocating is the same ideas that were expressed in the 1920's as "Trickle Down Economics." Those policies famously led to the Great Depression in the 1930's. For the record John Maynard Keynes recommended that government invest in creation of jobs so as to create a cash flow and get the economy moving that time. Remember the WPA, the CCC, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and scads of other projects that helped put Americans back to work, and built roads, bridges, and public buildings? Remember that? The Republican Party was opposed to that too.

To be sure, what the Republican Party is advocating is the same ideas that were expressed in the 1980's as "Supply-Side Economics" or "Reaganomics" or as George H.W. Bush called them, "Voodoo Economics." Mr. Reagan and company argued that we could actually create more tax revenue by cutting taxes and stimulating the economy. He also was known to pretty much oppose any government expenditure except, you guessed it, military projects. He created the greatest budget deficits in U.S. History, to that point and a 6 trillion dollar national debt.

To be sure, what the Republican Party is advocating is the same ideas that were promoted by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney during their 8 year fiasco in charge of our nation. While Bill Clinton left office with a balanced budget and a shrinking national debt, G.W. Bush, through his tax cuts, ill-advised wars, and total gutting of all corporate regulation managed to leave office with an even bigger national debt than was created by Ronald Reagan and with the worst economic disaster in history since the Great Depression.

As Joe Friday would have told us, "Just the facts Ma'am." Let's get real here. The current administration hasn't totally changed the world, but they did save the country from certain economic disaster when they gave assistance to the banking industry and the auto industry and they began a process of oversight of corporate America. The Republican Party has, despite opportunities to do good for all Americans, become the party of "NO!" They have become the party that uses any legal means possible to obstruct anything that might be good for average Americans. They have become the party of "Let's make up facts or twist the real facts any way possible to make the other party look bad." They have, to a large extent, become the party of liars.

There is so much more that can be said, but we, as Americans, need to know the truth. We need to seriously consider the consequences of our vote. We need to recognize the fact that this country is going to become a backwater nothing of a country if we turn it over to the Republican Party. We run the risk of becoming a nation that people want to leave to go somewhere else where there is opportunity instead of the "Land of Opportunity" that we have historically been. Just remember that voting Republican is irresponsible and bad politics and do the right thing. Remember, "Friends don't let friends vote Republican."

An Informed Populace Votes in Their Best Interest. The Others Aren't Paying Attention.

Funny how democracy works. There is the theory. There is the reality. In theory, informed citizens will vote in favor of their own best interest, based on facts. In reality, people vote for candidates based on sound bites on TV, based on bias, prejudice, and misinformation. People vote on the basis of ill-conceived notions of reality and dare I say it, ignorance.

Let's face it, anyone who has been paying any attention at least since I was born, and I was born in 1950, should know that the political party most likely to pursue policies beneficial to working class and poorer Americans is the Democratic Party. For all their foibles, the Democratic Party are the party of the majority of Americans, if you vote based on facts and an informed vision. We should also face the fact that the vision of the Republican Party is one that best represents the interests of money, big money. They are the party of less government, less regulation, less taxes, and less money in the pockets of working class Americans.

Social Security is designed to be a safety net for working class older Americans and for Americans who are unable to care for themselves. Wealthy Americans typically do not need Social Security and the Republican Party routinely tries to gut this program as being too expensive. They try to privatize it. Do you really want to trust Social Security to the Stock Market and the Wall Street types who precipitated this latest financial meltdown? They try to make it optional. Of course they do. They don't want to pay into a social safety net that benefits poor people and not themselves. Many of the people supporting the "Do away with Social Security" politics are also those who have stripped working Americans of their pensions to foster higher corporate profits. Let's see, the Republican Party, on the whole supports no Social Security and no pensions, and in many cases no minimum wage. What that suggests to me is that these are individuals who want to use ordinary Americans in the work force until they are used up and then discard them like so much trash going to the landfill.

In the latest clash between those who would help working class America and those who would help the minority of really wealthy Americans, there is the fuss over universal healthcare. Who benefits from universal healthcare legislation? Working class Americans. Wealthy Americans can afford their own health insurance. Who opposes universal healthcare? Republicans, the party of wealthy America. They don't want to pay to see that everyone can receive reasonable healthcare when they personally won't benefit from it.

The Republican Party likes to speak in terms of "class warfare created by the Democratic Party," as if we were one unified America, all equal, and engaged one big group hug. Class warfare? Of course there is class warfare. The Republican Party promotes it. They declared war on working class America a long time ago. The shameful thing is the pretense that what they propose will actually help all Americans. Please explain to me again, how cutting taxes one more time for the wealthiest Americans will shrink the budget deficit, create more jobs, and help all Americans. Somehow the logic escapes me.

So how is it that large numbers of working class and poorer Americans continue to support the Republican Party when they are so obviously making every effort to screw working class America? In my lifetime, the real trouble with the Republican Party started with Ronald Reagan. He brought back the idea of trickle down economics (Very popular in the 1920's until the stock market crashed in 1929.). More importantly, however, he brought in an element of jingoism. Make America safe from all enemies. Spend enormous amounts of money on the military and just kick anyone's ass that disagrees with us. Then he also allied himself with social conservatives.

As it turns out, those most likely to agree with a militaristic foreign policy and domestic policies that oppose abortion, gay rights, civil rights, women's rights, immigration reform and any number of other hot button social conservative issues are working class Americans. The Republican Party sold its soul to the devil and forged an alliance of the super wealthy, busy grabbing larger and larger portions of the pie, and the social conservatives, busy trying to return us all to a world that was in place before 1950. The sad thing being that these social conservatives support the Republican agenda wholesale, disregarding the fact that the Republican ideal screws most of them economically while pandering to them on social issues.

The founding fathers had an ideal of a republic where an informed populace would vote in its own best interest, and the great issues of the day would be debated, not just on the floors of Congress, but in the press, and on the streets of America. Thomas Jefferson founded the University of Virginia with the idea that the best and brightest would be able to go there and receive a world class education regardless of income. He had that informed and competent citizen thing in mind. Competent governance requires competent citizens. If ever there were an argument for public education, it is this. Now if we could only get Americans to take their education seriously, and take time out from obsessing over American Idol and what's up with Lindsey Lohan long enough to read some serious news, and think about it.

I guess my advice to the American people at this point can be summed up in two short words, "Pay attention!" If you're paying attention, you're less likely to have the wool pulled over your eyes. Have a wonderful weekend.

Is the Supreme Court Partisan? Of Course It Is.

The Senate Confirmation Committee has been grilling Elena Kagan this week. The Democrats on the committee just want to make it as easy as possible for her. The Republicans want to do everything they can to put obstacles in her way on the way to becoming the next Supreme Court Justice, the replacement for Justice John Paul Stevens.

Every time someone is nominated for the Supreme Court the debate begins between the concept of strict constructionism and loose constructionism, just interpreting the Constitution and using the court as an activist perch from which to advance an agenda. Currently the Republicans in Congress are railing against activist agendas and using the court to change society. Apparently, these Republicans were not against activist agendas when the Supreme Court saw fit to nullify ballots in Florida, thus assuring a Presidential victory for George W. Bush. Apparently, these Republicans have not been against an activist agenda when a Right leaning Supreme Court has done everything in its power to strike down attempts to limit the number of guns we have on the streets of our cities. Apparently, these Republicans have not been against an activist agenda when the current right leaning court has time and again upheld restrictions on a woman's right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy or not.

So now when a Democratic President nominates a woman who has similar beliefs to his own, the Republican Party disingenuously claims to be taking the high road in opposing her nomination, in the name of strict constructionism of the Constitution and neutral judges without a political agenda. What a crock of b.s. Looks to me as if they define "activist agendas" as any idea that is in opposition to what they believe. Agree with me? That's neutral and well-reasoned. Disagree with me? That's radical activism designed to re-engineer society.

Let's face facts boys and girls. The U.S. Supreme Court is now and always has been partisan. Presidents always look for opportunities to pack the court with those who agree with themselves politically. When Justices die or retire, this always offers a President an opportunity to restructure the political makeup of the court so as to affect policy for years to come. Remember that Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life and can go on affecting policy in America long after the President who appointed them is gone.

Throughout history this battle has gone on in Washington. John Adams and the Federalists sought Supreme Court Justices who would uphold their vision for a more centralized national control while Thomas Jefferson and his Democratic-Republicans wanted justices who would uphold their vision of a federated society with devolving to the individual states. Abraham Lincoln and the newly formed Republican Party sought justices who would cement federal supremacy, hold the union together, and stop state efforts to thwart abolitionism. FDR tried to raise the number of justices on the court so he could get a majority on the court to support his New Deal policies. The Republican Party of Hoover fought this move so they could keep intact a court that would thwart the New Deal. Partisan battles one and all.

The battle goes on. The sad thing is that the Republican Party's current efforts to install another Democratic, left-leaning justice on the Supreme Court makes it look like their vision for America is to invent a time machine that would return us to 1950. Between Senator Sessions of Alabama and Senators from Oklahoma and Texas the confirmation hearings this week began to look like an inquisition from a bunch of pre-civil rights, pre-abortion rights Dixiecrats.

Let's face it. All Supreme Court nominees are political. All are partisan. All have a view of the universe that ties in with the current President, who nominated them in the first place. The confirmation and subsequent placement on the actual Supreme Court is a political move made possible by the party of the President and a sufficient number of votes in the Senate. The Democrats currently control the Senate and Elena Kagan will be our next new justice on the Supreme Court.

For the record, Ms. Kagan's position on the court will not do much to alter the voting composition of the U.S. Supreme Court. There are a number of conservative justices who will have to retire or die before the court becomes a bastion of liberalism. We have a few years left of Right-wing "Conservative Activism" on this court before it begins to seriously swing left. So all of you who worry about Ms. Kagan's ascendancy to the court, rest easy because nothing much is going to change.

Nukes? Who Needs Nukes?

Recently, the owners of the two largest nuclear arsenals in the world, the U.S.A. and Russia agreed to reduce the number of nuclear warheads they possess. In a followup, President Obama announced that, in the future, the U.S. will not hold the threat of nuclear retaliation over the heads of non-nuclear nations, even if they attack us with biological or chemical weapons. Mr. Obama went on to explain that this is an effort to assure that U.S. nuclear weapons are strictly for deterrence and we have no inclination to wipe nations off the face of the planet with them. He further noted that rogue nations, specifically North Korea and Iran, who are trying to develop nuclear weapons despite international efforts to contain the spread of nuclear weapons are at risk of nuclear retaliation.

This has provoked a massive outcry from the right-wing, claiming that President Obama has just made the U.S. less safe, and has encouraged terrorist elements to attack us because they no longer have to fear getting their butts nuked. Wrap your heads around that claim, will you? Since when have terrorists worried about getting nuked? Since when has the U.S. nuked an entire group of people, say Afghanistan, because they have sheltered terrorists who attacked the U.S.? The claim is entirely ludicrous. And this is beside the fact that we have enough high-tech conventional weaponry to erase a nation from the face of the planet without engaging in nuclear war, if we are so inclined. Let's get real here.

What we need to do is to applaud a man who recognizes that more nuclear weapons on the planet make it a more dangerous place. Currently there are nuclear weapons in the U.S.A., Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France, India, Pakistan, Israel, and South Africa. There are ongoing efforts to develop nuclear weapons and sophisticated delivery systems (long-range missiles) in both North Korea and Iran, both on the U.N. list of crazed fanatics. The larger number of nations possessing these weapons, the greater the likelihood that either A) some nation will try to wipe some other nation out and start a nuclear exchange that will result in humanity going the way of the dinosaurs, or B) some fanatic terrorist group will get hold of a nuclear weapon and start a nuclear exchange that will result in humanity going the way of the dinosaurs.

Did it ever occur to anyone on the right-wing fringes that the only country in the world that has had a nuclear weapon of any sort used on it refuses to develop nuclear weapons, and their national security has not been threatened even once in the last 65 years? Has it occurred to anyone that the country that originally spawned nuclear scientists has gotten along marvelously without nuclear weapons. (That's Germany boys and girls, not the U.S. or Russia.) Has it occurred to anyone that the country that invented smart bombs may not need nukes? Frankly nukes, as a weapon, are just ridiculous overkill. Who needs them when you have the technology to obliterate individuals with a drone and leave the bystanders to gawk? Who needs nukes when we have missiles and bombs that will level entire cities and satellite guided missiles and stealth bombers to deliver those explosive devices?

Maybe it's time we took note of the fact that nuclear weapons are obsolete. Ever since the Reagan administration the U.S. weapons labs have been working on anti-missile defenses. Reagan called it "Star Wars." When, during the first Persian Gulf War, the Iraqis shot Scud missiles at Israel, the U.S. provided the Israelis with anti-missile missiles. They weren't very accurate, at that time, but that was almost 20 years ago now. In the meantime the U.S. has continued work on these defenses and on laser defenses as well. How serious should we take these efforts? Why do you think the Russians have been so adamantly opposed to U.S. development of anti-missile defenses? They're worried that we will have the ability to hit them with a nuclear strike and shoot down their reply. That's why. It's in their best interest and ours to agree to a nuclear reduction treaty, and to pressure the rest of the world to stop the nuclear stupidity as well. Let's get real. Any serious nuclear exchange would result in the annihilation of every living creature on this planet, or at least on a couple of continents. If anyone survived such a catastrophe, it would be "Welcome to the stone age."

All in all, I am reminded of a discussion I once had with one of my brothers. This older brother is a veteran of the U.S. Navy and decidedly more conservative than I on a great many issues regarding the government and the military. At this point in time I forget exactly what it was that we were talking about, but I remember his reply distinctly. He told me, "Do you really think that the U.S. government would get rid of some deadly weapon if we didn't already have something that is even better and more deadly?" Think about that boys and girls. It's a scary proposition.

Majority Rule, Minority B.S.

After eight years of G.W. Bush, Darth Cheney, and company, America spoke up loud and clear. They elected a man of mixed race to the White House, a man who stands pretty clearly in the center left of the political spectrum. They elected a pretty large majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives and to the Senate. The economy was in a shambles. We were at war in two separate countries with little hope of resolution of those wars. We had developed the largest budget deficit in history and subsequently the largest national debt in history, eclipsing that massive debt acquired during the Reagan-Bush years.

America wanted an end to the wars. America wanted the economic mess straightened out. America was promised health care for everyone, and they decided that they wanted that too. That is to say that a majority of America voted for that. Then when the duly elected President, House, and Senate took their places in Washington, the right-wing, the decidedly minority right-wing, erupted. Apparently the idea of democracy and majority rule didn't appeal much to the right. They began doing everything they could possibly do to thwart the desires of the majority of Americans.

Being vocal about your opposition, even if you are obnoxious, is a part of democracy. Solemnly swearing to defeat the people who did what you didn't want done is a part of democracy. It happens. You're welcome to speak your mind. Enlightenment ideals and freedoms are part and parcel of our system. Threats, abuse, and attacks in order to frighten and intimidate are not. Unfortunately, I find ample evidence in American history of other groups who have used the same tactics. The KKK is just one.

As Congressmen went about their business this past weekend and tried their level best to vote their consciences, tea party protestors hurled racial epithets, anti-gay slurs, anti-semitic slurs, left swastikas and threatening notes, and in at least one case spit on a respected Congressman. After they were unsuccessful in scaring Congressmen into voting the minority line instead of the majority line, they have resorted to throwing bricks through windows of Congressmen's offices, leaving threatening phone messages, and in one case cutting a propane line at the brother of a Congressman's house, falsely believing this to be the residence of the Congressman. This goes beyond free speech and loyal opposition into simple criminal behavior.

Then there is the Republican Party's Congressional delegation trying to do anything they can to put a stop to healthcare reform after the fact, using any procedural trick they can pull from their hat. Various states have threatened to stop healthcare reform in their states by passing state laws that stop the federal action. I have news boys and girls. This already was tested in the late 1850's and early 1860's. There were the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions and an idea known as "nullification." It had to do with "states' rights." A Civil War was fought over the issue. The federal government has supremacy and individual states do not have the right to override the actions of said federal government. It has been deemed unconstitutional. That's the difference between federation and confederation. Remember confederation? They lost the Civil War. Slavery was outlawed once and for all.

Here's the thing people. The right-wing ascendency that started with Ronald Reagan is over. The right-wing is going to have to accept it. The idea of less government, less taxes, and less oversight of all things has been proven to be a bogus concept. The era of less social safety net and unrestrained military buildup has come to an end. It produced the biggest national debt in history. It produced the biggest financial meltdown since the Great Depression. It produced the biggest international backlash to American foreign policy in history.

It is time the minority stopped trying to intimidate the rest of the population into accepting the same policies that got us into this mess to begin with. The majority has spoken. It is time for sanity and reason. It is time to end the ascendency of racists, bigots, and those who somehow think that those with different skin pigmentation are lesser beings. It is time to end the ascendency of those who think that people who grow up speaking a language other than English are lesser beings. It is time to end the ascendency of those who cannot accept those with different religious views, or those who have different sexuality. It is time to end the ascendency of those who have scads of money and who don't give a damn about what happens to anyone else.

And while we're at it, it's time to remind Rush Limbaugh that he promised to move to Costa Rica if healthcare reform passed. And it's time to remind him that Costa Rica has universal healthcare. He's welcome to take Sarah Palin and all of those tea party set people with him. Let's see how they like Costa Rica, and how Costa Ricans deal with them.

I Don't Do Tea Parties

Winter has returned to Streeterville. The temperatures have dipped. Currently it's 27 degrees at the Mini. The frozen circles that look like white corpuscles have returned to Streeterville Bay. My thoughts have returned to Tea Party types and the question stands out, "Who are these people anyway?"

In a gleeful moment for the Democratic Party, and bona fide members of the left-wing in this country, Sarah Palin, the darling of the Tea Party and Rush Limbaugh, the pit bull of the Dick Cheney set are at each other's throats. It seems the former Governor of Alaska takes umbrage at the use of the word retard. She has a Downs Syndrome baby and has gone on a tear, comparing the use of retard to the use of the N word as a means of denigrating people with mental handicaps. Ms. Palin went so far as to demand the firing of White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel for referring to certain people as f_____g retards in a closed door meeting.

Meanwhile there are trouble makers out there who noted that Right-wing commentator (Why isn't this commenter instead? Never have understood that.), Rush Limbaugh regularly refers to anyone who disagrees with him as "retards." Suddenly there is a rift in right-wing land. Limbaugh shot back, "Our political correct society's acting like some big insult's taken place by calling somebody who's a retard a retard." Obviously Mr. Limbaugh has issues with those who question his right to call somebody a retard. Yet Ms. Palin who demanded the firing or resignation of Rahm Emmanuel has yet to demand the resignation or firing of the Right-Wing Pit Bull, Rush Limbaugh. On the one hand we have a rift in right-wing land. On the other hand we have hypocrisy on Ms. Palin's part. On yet the other hand, we have Rush Limbaugh behaving like a moron (Note that I did not call him a retard.). On the other hand yet we have much ado about nothing.

So who are these disparate elements of the right-wing? Rush Limbaugh represents the mainstream of the Republican Party with all their "I'm rich. I plan to keep it that way. I think the rest of the world is made up of dumbasses who need to listen to me and help me pad my bankroll some more." The Tea Party sorts are a group who are made up of socially conservative and anti-tax Republicans, some who call themselves Independents, and some who call themselves Libertarians, and some who say "Call me anything you want. Just don't call me late to dinner."

The thing is that they are all basically Republicans under the skin, no matter what they say. The big corporations and fat cats love and embrace them all. They all chant the same mantra "That government that governs least, governs best." If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. If it does everything in its power short of creating anarchy to limit the role of government, it must be a Republican.

Each and every one of these people fail to see that it was precisely this mantra that got our economy into this mess in the first place. Lack of government oversight of business and banking allowed all the shady practices that nearly brought down the entire Earth's economy to flourish. The Limbaugh faction is just cynical. They benefit bigtime from laissez-faire. They think Adam Smith is a demi-god. The Tea Party sorts are well, how shall I say this...hmmm, ill-informed and really unaware of how the government could help them out if they'd only let it. They're too blinded by abortion and gay marriage and propaganda that demonizes taxes and government supervision of the economy. (Note that I called them ill-informed, not retards. Take that Sarah Palin.)

Our infrastructure is crumbling. How are we going to pay for rebuilding and repair? We gotta pay taxes people. Our schools are falling behind the rest of the industrialized world. How we gonna fix em and pay competent people to do the job of educating our children? We gotta pay taxes people? Most of the industrialized world has high speed rail and healthcare for everyone in their societies and a really good social safety net. How we gonna pay for that? We gotta pay taxes people. The upshot here is that many of the people who would benefit the most from healthcare reform, from the jobs created by government investment in the infrastructure and in technology and education are doing their damnedest to thwart efforts to benefit them. The rich and powerful wing of the Republican Party is laughing all the way to the bank and calling them all "retards" while they're sipping their champagne.

Me? I'm just glad that I have a college degree, a job, a pension plan, healthcare, and I live in a city that has mass transit, albeit not high speed. How did I get all this boys and girls? I paid for it with government guaranteed loans to get through college, with taxes to pay my salary as a teacher, with more taxes to pay for the mass transit that allows a large city to function. I don't live in a suburb in a gated community, walled off from the poor and desperate. I don't declare them all lazy and worthless while calling them all retards. I don't do Tea Parties.

Of Coffee and Right Wing Verbal Assaults

The Republican across the hall...Excuse me. Let me start again. The guy across the hall who studiously denies being a Republican, but whose views time and again come out sounding very Republican, stopped me in the hallway this morning while I was still drinking my coffee. Let's be clear here. I'm not very clear headed or cognizant early in the morning. The later in the day, the clearer I get. That's how this train operates.

At any rate, the guy who thinks he isn't a Republican, but who clearly is stopped me and said, "Excuse me but I know that you're certainly more left than I am." If further left than tea party right is what he meant, then I suppose I certainly am. Then he went on, "So in your opinion, has Obama done anything right, or good, since he's been in office?"

First of all, it's annoying enough to have people beset me with these kinds of questions when I'm fully awake, knowing that these are people with a certain mindset and an agenda, but when they do this to you first thing in the morning, knowing your political leanings and knowing it's sure to piss you off, well that's exactly what it does. It pisses you off royally, and then you're in the position of trying to come up with a reply that sounds reasoned and to the point and not a pissed off rant. When you're still having your early morning coffee, it sometimes comes out as a minute of two of silence, followed by "Um well, er...."

I had to think a little bit to think of something that would appease a right winger on a mission. What I came up with was, "He did rescue the banking system, and if he hadn't the entire global economy might have collapsed. We may not like it that all that money went to the banks, but it was necessary, and it worked. I think that he might need to be a little more forceful in urging Congress to get on the ball and do something, but he did that and..."

Mr. Not a Republican harumphed loudly, and started the little rantlet that I knew was coming. "We could use a little more bailout for GM and Chrysler and a little less for the banks. Frankly that's just helping a bunch of rich people while working people are suffering...." I had to agree that we could use more job stimulus, and let's hope that is coming. Nevertheless, the bank bailout was necessary. It maybe just needed some more strings attached, as in "Don't go using the stimulus money to give million dollar bonuses to executives. I believe everyone concerned recognizes that, including Barack Obama. That's why he's urging a tax on the banks to recoup some of that money.

What really irks me is that so many people are ready to jump all over Barack Obama for not fixing what ails the country overnight, when it took the Bush administration 8 years to put it in this mess. He didn't give stimulus money to banks, but kept up a climate that allowed them to flourish and put us in this mess in the first place. Mr. Obama has urged Congress to pass healthcare reform, but that silly little thing about needing a supermajority in the Senate to get anything done because of the filibuster has negated that possibility. Mr. Obama has regularly urged Congress to adopt measures that will create jobs in growth industries for the next century but Republicans fight any measure he proposes as "too expensive" for the nation.

On the one hand the right wingers want the President to do something that will help the nation out of its malaise, but they oppose anything that he proposes as "big government sticking its nose in the business of working Americans" and as "costly boondoggles that our grandchildren will be paying off." I have to remind people that the last time the U.S. budget was balanced, the economy was ticking along just fine, and the national debt was being paid down was when Bill Clinton was President, and he tried to do many of the same things that Mr. Obama is trying to do.

I am reminded of Mr. Obama's statement in the State of the Union Address when he told Republicans "If you have a better plan that you think will work, I'd like to see it." What is going on right now is that there are people on the right who oppose anything the President and the Democratic Party attempt and then blame them for not doing anything when the right wing opposition is successful in thwarting the attempts at doing something constructive. It's just annoying. It's very clear that there was an agenda that the American people wanted accomplished, a majority of the American people, so get the heck out of the way and let it happen will you? And while you're at it, quit assailing me first thing in the morning before I'm fully awake.