The Republican Party... 2013

When is enough enough? After Barack Obama was elected president, we were treated to a barrage of e-mails of black face pictures, caricatures of the president and his wife as monkeys and many other assorted veiled racially tinged attempts at humor. The common thread in all of these was that the people sending them were associated with the Republican Party at either federal, state or local levels. What was also common was that we never heard from our nationally elected GOP leaders a word of real condemnation. Never once did we hear them step to a bank of microphones and declare what most people knew... that these attacks were not politically motivated, but rather racially motivated. Put simply, President Barack Obama and his wife were not being caricatured because of their political stances, but because of the color of their skin. You don't like a politicians stance on an issue, that's fair game, but in 2013, we should not be seeing the kinds of racial political stunts that were common in a less enlightened era.  But perhaps that is to be expected in a country that has a rich history of racial tension and animus. Which brings us to todays little ditty, pictured above... courtesy of the Chairperson of the Republican Party of Yellowstone County in Montana, Jennifer Olsen.  Now I am certain that in a day or two Ms. olsen will make a heartfelt apology, claiming she is not racist and was just passing along what she thought was a funny little joke. But really, would this picture have tickled her fancy if the president was white? And so I ask, at what point will the national leaders of the GOP step up to the plate and publicly condemn this type of behavior? At what point will they go beyond the "It's a local issue" and "I would not have done that" boilerplate responses and call this what it is... a pure and blatant example of racial politics from a Republican leader? For weeks since the election last November, we've heard GOP leaders saying they will not win elections being, as Bobby Jindal put it, the party of stupid.  And for weeks, the rank and file state and local leaders have kept right on going, with nary a word from John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Linsey Graham or anyone else. After the US was attacked on 9/11, many in the GOP dominated Congress and Senate asked why moderate Muslims remained silent as the more militant branches of Islam struck time and time again in cowardly terroristic attacks across Afghanistan and Iraq. Right-wing bloggers joined in the chorus along with many FOX television personalities to say that a reluctance of moderates to be critical of extremist Islam signaled acceptance and agreement with what the terrorists were doing. To them, there were no moderate Muslims. Isn't it fair to judge the current national Republican Party by the same standards? You tell me?

Government Socialism... I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya...

When is Socialism bad? Apparently when it’s the other guys Socialism. Here’s what I mean. Since the day he was elected, President Obama has been pilloried by center right partisans as hell-bent on making America a socialistic third world country, as opposed to the free market capitalistic juggernaut our founding fathers supposedly envisioned. Obama the logic goes, wants to see everyone dependent on government so that the government can control them and save them from their inability to make good and right decisions.  It is his desire, unsaid, but certainly evident as some claim, to crush the rugged individualistic spirit that has defined America for many years and replace it with a governmental “nanny state.” We have been told that if government gets too involved in the lives of the people, freedom will evaporate, we will cease to work hard and then we’ll just take up a chair on the front porch waiting for the next subsidy check to come via the US Mail. When government intervenes fiscally on behalf of the people, instead of the people accepting responsibility for their own lives, this is socialism.  Or so we have been told by many on the conservative right.  We should, at every turn, reject this socialism, because it is bad. But let me ask this… if government aid for the individual, who can just get a job and work hard is socialism, what is government aid to corporations that are reaping record profits at a time when America’s deficit is bursting? If a government handout to an individual causes him or her to not accept the reality of bad decisions in life, don’t corporate subsidies shield businesses across America from the same responsibilities of bad decisions? Why is it that when it comes to defining who is the evil socialist in the room, seemingly only President Barack Obama is guilty? Is it because he, along with President George Bush ordered the US government to intervene on behalf of two corporations, Chrysler and GM, saving them from near certain bankruptcy? Because if subsidizing poorly run corporations is evidence of evil socialism, then surely all of the politicians and Americans decrying the potential end of US Government subsidies for the dairy, farm and petroleum industries would qualify too, wouldn’t they? You see, Americans love socialism, when it benefits them, or more accurately, us. In the recently past Presidential elections, candidate Romney was partially derailed by his famous 47% comments that implied a high percentage of Americans had become takers. My fear is that the percentage is closer to 100% than we care to admit.  To demonize one politician or another, or one class of people over another with the charge of socialism, is just our discomfort with admitting that reality and blatant partisanship, devoid of an attitude that is truly seeking solutions.

Dear Sean Hannity... welcome to the party...

Dear Mr. Hannity, I try not to be overly political. Yes I supported and even worked to elect Barack Obama to the presidency in 2008, but I try to see the other side of the equation. Some days I am better at that than others and believe it or not, I have voted for, and even worked for Republican candidates in the past. Like many, I believe issues are important and disdain politicians when they are fungible on their views simply for political gain. Which brings me to my subject today, immigration. Mr Hannity, you are a well known FOX News personality and popular conservative radio host.  Apart from Rush Limbaugh, you are the best known media figure in conservative circles and have been front and center in the conservative wars against Barack Obama, the liberal media and the progressive agenda. Which makes what happened yesterday all the more remarkable. You sir, the darling of the right-wing of the Republican Party, the man Dems love to hate for what they see as his extreme views, have "evolved" on immigration. What's perhaps most amazing is that you have embraced a pathway to legalization that you have always derided as amnesty and a reward to lawbreakers. I'm stunned. Stunned, because for years you have been dismissive of any attempts to realistically deal with the millions of undocumented people living in our country.  Short of building a wall and deportations, you, and your network have had no constructive ideas on the subject and have frequently, along with the guests you have had on your shows, fanned the worst flames of anti-immigrant xenophobia. Yet for some reason, you've evolved. Well welcome to the party Sean. Pardon me while I wipe the sarcastic look off my face. You see, it would not be so bad, I mean after all, us realists knew for years that the GOP was going to have to get to this point, except that you and your guests are so often spiteful of President Obama when he changes his views, or evolves.  You were especially disdainful when he in fact used the term "evolved" for his position on gay marriage. So let me ask you a question Mr. Hannity... when did this evolution take place?  And what changed for you? Is there any possibility at all that this evolution, announced 2 days after the GOP lost a winnable election for the presidency and gave up seats in the Senate, had anything to do with those results? Is it possible that you came to this need to evolve after looking at the demographics of the election results and, like some of the other ilk in the GOP, concluded that without some "evolution" you guys would soon be about as relevant as the old Whig Party? Or is it the product of a long process of reflection, prayer and study? Seriously, I'd like to know. Because like you, I wonder whether people who change their positions overnight are just doing so for political expediency.  The type of political expediency that represents all that is bad about politics here in the United States and which you frequently decry as unprincipled on your shows. In all seriousness Sean, we're glad to have you on board.  Even if it was solely for naked political ambition, it's the right thing to do. Sincerely, Dave

America lost before the voting began...

A quick reading of the results of yesterdays election would say that Barack Obama won and Mitt Romney lost. But the truth is that the American people lost and the results were in far before anyone voted and sat down last night in anticipation of seeing their candidate elected to the presidency. In the famous words of Bernie Mac, listen up America, we lost.  But not for the reasons you might think. We lost because money won.  That’s right America, money won! Let me explain. The cost for this years presidential contest was over 2 billion, not million, dollars.  70 million dollars was spent to win a Senate seat in Massachusetts, 55 million for a seat in Texas, 30 million for the Wisconsin seat and over 40 million dollars was spent by the candidates for the Senate seat in Montana.  Montana?  There are less than a million people living in the state and you need 40 mil to campaign there? How about over 21 million to win a seat in congress for candidates from Florida or 20 million for the Speaker of the House to be reelected in Ohio. The influence of big money from individuals and corporations on both sides of the political spectrum has damaged our system perhaps, beyond repair. The question is whether America will rise up and demand the kind of change necessary to return the political system to the people. I am not encouraged. All recent attempts by politicians, individuals and even state governments to limit the amounts of money spent on races have been met by a chorus of naysayers screaming about first amendment rights of free speech.   When a group gets a law passed limiting spending, the lawsuits begin almost immediately.  Think Citizens United, McCain-Feingold or the still being litigated campaign finance law from Montana. Ideas for publicly funded elections have been derided as European hoighty-toightyness. Calls for public openness of political donors in real time have routinely been met with derision by the recipients, and donors, of these exorbitant large sums. As you and I, the John Q. Public people, express our open disdain almost daily during these campaigns, we are totally ignored.   Have you taken a look at your Facebook page today?  There are so many people thanking God that the commercials are over, it’s incredible. The little girl crying on You Tube who was sick of Bronc Obama and Mitt Romney was just expressing what most of us have felt everyday the last few months.  Monday I went to my mail box and it took me 10 minutes to sort through all political ads just to find my two pieces of actual mail. Yet in spite of this disgust and the total corruption of our political system, we the people refuse to demand change and hold our political representatives feet to the fire. America, we did not lose last night when Barack Obama was elected and we would not have lost had Mitt Romney prevailed. We had already lost when we willfully refused to put any limits on the amount of money that could be spent to win an election in this great country. Somehow I doubt this is what our founders envisioned when they penned the First Amendment giving us the right of free speech. What say you?

Let's go to the Map... the elections and electors...

Our presidential elections are all going to come down to one thing... the map! That's right, after all is said and done, after all of the debates, speeches, charges and counter charges, lies and dirty tricks, all that is going to matter will be the map. And 270 electoral votes. Because here in these United States of America, you can lose the popular vote and still be president if you can amass the magic number of 270 electoral votes. So, here's my question. Being realistic, what states will Mr. Romney be able to pick off from the list that President Obama carried in 2008? Here's a link to a nifty interactive map... take a look, give it a try, and leave your ideas...