We, the PEOPLE!!

Last week this blog fortuitously was delayed a few hours.  As a result of that delay, we were able to report on South Carolina governor Mark Sanford’s “excellent adventure” to Argentina, and all that this entailed (if you’ll pardon the pun).

The point of the article was that those conservative evangelistic folks who like to try to convince the rest of us that they have a lock on morality should keep their holier-than-thou ruminations to themselves.  Sanford, and folks like him such as Sarah Palin, are members of that group.  So when they get caught not practicing what they preach to the rest of us, the press jumps all over it.

Other well-known celebrities who have suffered similar weaknesses under similar circumstances of preaching to others include 1980’s TV evangelists Jim Bakker and Jummy Swaggert, among others.  You can read the sordid details about them HERE.  And, of course, among the most famous of cheaters is ex-president Bill Clinton, although Clinton hardly qualifies as a holier-than-thou preacher.

Of course, there are probably hundreds of millions of folks on earth (if not billions) who have engaged in behaviors that their spouses would probably would not approve of.  It is, whether we wish to acknowledge it or not, a pretty prevalent characteristic of the human experience.  As civilized people, we try to contain such behaviors in the interest of fairness to our families.  But as imperfect beings, people sometimes fail to achieve desired goals, despite the best efforts.

Welcome to the human race, where certain folks have been fighting against reality since people started to get organized.

Many residents of South Carolina consider themselves conservative christian voters.  With that in mind, consider that the GOP has been calling for Mark Sanford’s resignation with mounting urgency and insistence.  They’re not insisting that Sanford resign because he left his state leaderless for almost a week, since the Lt. Governor did not know where Sanford was and there had been no transition of power to the Lt. governor.  At least if that was the reason for the demand for resignation, it could be understandable, if a little excessive.

Nope.  The reason for the demand that Sanford resign that is coming from the GOP has EVERYTHING to do with politics.  Sanford only has a year and a half left in his term and cannot run for rel-election due to South Carolina term limit law.  The GOP wants to demonstrate their commitment to family values and religious righteousness, particularly in the bible belt.  Sanford is a GOP target of opportunity, as it were, that allows the party demonstrate to its extremely conservative base that it still cares about them.  That’s nice, although it does nothing to fix the real damage done by the Bush administration to the GOP image.  It also doesn’t do a thing to address the reality of the GOP’s misguided effort to restore credibility to the GOP.

Although the GOP has always been the first and the loudest to demand resignations over questions of marital indiscretions, particularly in Bill Clinton’s case, the reality is that many, many GOP’s have gotten caught falling off the “morality” wagon in recent years.  And whatever indiscretions are committed by a politician, the place they must be addressed is with his or her spouse.  When Bill “did” Monica, it was an issue that Hillary Clinton, first and foremost, had to deal with.  She did so in her own way, and in private.

And except for the efforts demanded by the failed GOP impeachment proceedings, Bill Clinton left office with an approval rating around 60%.  Compare that with the approval rating George W. Bush left with, around 28%.  Since we have never heard of W cheating on Laura, that should tell the GOP something.  That something is that the American people largely don’t care about a politician’s private life if that politician is doing the job he or she was elected to do.  In other word, most thinking people really don’t care about a politician’s private life.  They only care about their own.

That’s truly as it should be.  Although some ultra-extreme GOPers (but certainly not all) believe that an elected official should be passing and/or signing religious laws, most of us believe that the elected official should be judged on on-the-job performance and accomplishments, and not legal off-the-job behaviors.

We, the PEOPLE finds it both curious and amusing that this liberal blog is defending a conservative republican politician.  But then, we also question Ann Coulter’s ultra-extreme right wing credentials.  After all, until a year ago she was engaged to a liberal lawyer from New York City, and she loves the “Grateful Dead”.  But then, the GOP’s credibility just isn’t what it used to be. 

So if defending a conservative republican governor is the right thing to do. it will be done.  After all, someone has to do the right thing! 

This afternoon’s blog was going to be about Iran and President Obama’s reticence to overtly bashing the regime, as the conservative right side of the political aisle has criticized him for not doing.  There was also going to be mention of the fact that Obama’s strategy of not making the internal strife in Iran about the USA was the exact right thing to do.

But this was not to be.  As current events  (and luck) would have it, this blog is several hours late in production due to summer tasks that always scream for attention.  That fact allowed a golden baseball of opportunity to land into this writer’s lap (as it were).

A late-breaking story about republican Mark Sanford, the conservative republican governor of South Carolina, preempted the best laid (if you’ll pardon the pun…   ) plans.  Sanford, you’ll remember, is the guy who refused to take the federal money made available to all states by the Obama Stimulus Package.  Specifically, Sanford rejected $700 million that was to help the unemployed and fund projects in his state that would put people back to work.

Sanford was sued in South Carolina, and on June 5th, 2009, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that Sanford must accept the money and use it for its intended purposes.  As a result, Sanford evidently planned a little get-away from a tough political season and the stresses of his life.  On June 18th, he “disappeared”.

No one seemed to know initially where he was, but when pressed by the Press for answers, his staff finally said that he went hiking on the Appalachian Trail, which, though peculiar for a governor to disappear for several days without even letting the Lt. governor know, was at least a plausible explanation.  Never mind that his evident lack of stability probably destroyed any chance he ever had to run successfully for president in 2012 or beyond.

But that pesky press just wasn’t satisfied with the hiking explanation.  And lo and behold, as Sanford was deplaning at Hartfield Airport in Atlanta, Georgia after a flight from Buenos Aires, Argentina, he ran smack into a reporter.  The reporter asked him if he had gone alone to Buenos Aires and he said yes.  But when the reporter asked where he had stayed, Sanford’s response was, “I see where you’re going with this”, and he left without answering.

Of course, it wouldn’t be long before every news wire service reporter in Argentina found out exactly where Sanford had stayed  (and with whom).  In fact, they probably will track it down,anyway.  But Sanford made what may turn out to be the smartest move in his life, considering how screwed up his life presently is:  he came clean.

Sanford admitted to having an affair.  He would have been found out anyway, considering that just you can’t get from the Appalachian Trail to Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport by jet transport.  But by admitting to it right after being caught in the hiking lie, he disarmed all the potential blow-by-blow unfolding of every sordid detail in this situation, Watergate-like.  However, that’s where the smart moves start and end.

First and foremost, this is a politician who espoused very conservative values, attempting to distinguish himself as a bastion of morality, religious piousness, family values, fiscal conservatism, libertarian views on small government, etc., etc.  That’s all fine for anyone, until they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar, so to speak.  The very conservative often fancy themselves as morality police or even leaders who can act on our moral behalf.  It thus becomes that much more newsworthy when it turns out they don’t practice what they preach.

Sanford and his brethren, such as Sarah Palin, would like to have the rest of us believe that they are, in fact, “purer” than those dastardly liberals who are screwing EVERYTHING up.  They wear their brand of morality like a shield and a badge of honor, as though the mere sight of them will make good people squeaky-clean, and inversely, the rest of the heathens will be seen for what they (we) really are:  heathens!!

One has to believe that the image of the GOP couldn’t get any worse, since everything allegedly bad about them seemingly has already been written and witnessed by the entire world.  But Sanford was the chairman the Republican Governors Association (RGA) before any of this was exposed.  He has since resigned while this blog was being written.  Interesting, the RGA, according its own web site, is leading the GOP back to popularity.  Kinda.  Sorta… 

The real point is this:  People are human and as such they are imperfect.  They tend to make imperfect judgments which often result in mistakes.  To err is human, it is said, and on that basis, we are all at that party.  But there are way too many of those who like to preach at others about how they should live, what they should believe and what they should think.  They set themselves up as authorities on right and wrong, good and evil, acceptable and unacceptable.  Those people would do well to watch and learn from the ordeal of the Mark Sanfords of the world.

And to Mark Sanford himself:  Not so easy being a mere, weak, imperfect human, is it?

But then, most of us already knew that.

From time to time We, the PEOPLE!! receives an email which is a cut above the rest, and deserves to be shared among the readership for the salient point it makes.  Such is the following article, which sums up one of the liabilities inherent in any society which values freedom of expression and freedom of the press:

___________________________________________________
“Recently it was reported that Rush Limbaugh signed a four year contract with Clear Channel Communications for $400 million dollars.  Some have wondered why such a large sum was paid to Mr. Limbaugh, while thousands of Clear Channel employees have been simultaneously being laid off as earnings have been cut in half.

“On the face of it, this does seem to be a questionable decision on the part of Clear Channel, especially in light of the fact that most of Rush’s  listeners are males over the age of 55  and that this is one of the least  profitable  demographic groups for advertisers.  The children of most of Rush’s listeners have grown up and moved out.  The listeners themselves lead relatively sedentary lifestyles, and for many, their economic power is in decline.  Contrast this with a 34-year-old woman with a family who generally controls the family budget, leads a far more active lifestyle and who is now making buying decisions for herself and her family which will influence purchases for many years to come.

“In spite of this, Rush Limbaugh’s salary really is justified to his backers.  And why?  Because although the over-55-year-old empty nesters may not have the purchasing needs of  that 34 year old,  there is one characteristic about this group that makes them extremely attractive to those Texas Republicans that Eric Boehlert, Senior Fellow at Media Matters for America refers to as “at the forefront of promoting right wing radio”:

“These folks vote.   And it was Rush Limbaugh who, more than any other single individual, brought about the radicalization of the Republican Party and its control of both houses of Congress in 1994.

“The ultra-rich, with their multi-million dollar houses, private jets and, often inherited personal fortunes,  see progressive government as something which can only raise their taxes, threaten their lucrative tax havens and block their “profits trumps all” philosophy while giving them very little, if anything, in return.  Hence their opposition to progressiveness.  However, being a small minority, they need to manipulate public opinion on their behalf.   Herein lies the true value of Rush Limbaugh.

“Who else but Rush can so eloquently convince a retired couple living on Social Security and a small pension that raising the taxes on the super rich by 3% and reforming the medical system is really Marxism and Socialism?   Who else but Rush can express sympathy for Somali pirates in order to discredit a President who seeks to close corporate tax loopholes?   And who but Rush could persuade patriotic Americans to sacrifice their economic future and even the lives of their own children, to vote for those who launched a war, the purpose of which has been proven false, while he and his cronies sit comfortably at home, and companies like Halliburton reap billions in the process?  Who else can so eloquently convince millions to turn a blind eye to the findings of science, and instead jeopardize the entire planet by listening to the comforting assurances and denials of corporate polluters and those in their service?

“Rush Limbaugh’s real value goes far beyond that of attracting advertising dollars.  Using fear, false facts, misquotes, distortions and hate all skillfully blended with appeals to “traditional values”, “work ethics” and “Christian principles”, he sells a divisive philosophy aimed at convincing middle class Americans that letting the super rich have unregulated rein will solve all of our financial difficulties. Rush’s value is not measured in advertising revenue but in selling the unspoken belief that the real problem with America is that corporations and the ultra-rich have neither enough power nor enough money.  To think otherwise, according to him, is “class envy”.

“Signed by VietnamEraVet USAF 1969-1972″

_____________________________________________________________

After reading this piece, one is struck contemplating the possibility that the Republican National Committee is somehow involved in supporting Clear Channel’s decision to pay Rush $400 million while laying off thousands.  After all, recent polls indicate that Rush is seen as tied for leadership of the GOP with “Tricky Dick” Cheney (each got 10%).  That’s not much of a recommendation for those trying to decide if they want to join the GOP or not.  After all, it’s one thing to be genuinely conservative in philosophy.  It’s another thing altogether to want to be a member of the GOP in these time, since the GOP still carries the stigma of the Bush administration.

One thing is certain, however.  Rush is a very rich man who is getting richer every day.  And he is doing it by criticizing the democrats.  It stands to reason that he must absolutely love having the democrats in power, since it is his criticism of them that continues to bring in the cash.

One thus wonders if Rush actually voted democratic.  After all, he has a fortune in salaries to protect:  His own salaries.

Isn’t one of the very basic tenets of the GOP to protect the individual’s market freedom, to protect the free enterprise system, and allow the free market and business competition to set prices on their own?

Then explain the following to we, the ignorant masses:  Why is the GOP fighting so hard against Obama’s health care proposal to establish a government health care plan similar to Medicare for people who simply cannot afford their own private health insurance?

The GOP operatives in the house of representatives and the senate have clearly expressed that an available government-offered health plan is a “nonstarter” for because, in their own words, “Washington-run programs undermine market-based competition through their ability to impose price controls and shift costs to other purchasers,” as quoted from a letter issued by the Republicans on the Senate Finance panel to President Obama.

What this statement doesn’t say is that private health insurers could negotiate with drug and medical providers to reduce costs if they wanted to.  What it really does says, though, is that the GOP is afraid (and rightfully so, as we’ll see) that their PAC-contributing buddies in the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries, as well as certain overcharging, 4-days-a-week-golf-playing, Maserati-driving, ocean-front-estate-owning professional health providers (a.k.a. doctors and medical CEOs) who hugely support preserving the health-care-fiasco status quo in the USA for their own personal gain, will not be able to compete as they exist now against a health plan that is continuously monitored for efficiency and effective health-enhancing results.   They also fear that their contributing friends won’t be able to compete with a health plan in which the administrators can legally negotiate with competing drug companies and medical providers for the lowest possible volume prices for medication and services, the way most other western industrialized countries do.

And in the event anyone doubts that that Americans are being fleeced by all of the above, just google any medication you are interested in, and a gazillion web sites will pop up where you can order them on-line without the need for a prescription and for a fraction of the price of the same medication in any US pharmacy.  Or check out the horror stories that pro-health-care reformers are posting on a gazillion web sites also reachable by googling US health care horror stories.

Of course, those opposing health care reform, and particularly those opposing any government-provided plan, are sending out their own message, highlighting isolated mistakes committed by universal health care systems in other countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom.  One such organization is the Conservatives for Patients Rights, which has been running television ads warning that the sky will fall on you if the government gets involved in health care.  But if their claims are true, then all those folks on Medicare and Medicaid, as well as all those millions of children receiving health care through SCHIP, must be feeling absolutely crushed under that really heavy fallen sky!

Seriously, there is no question that in any health care system, as in any other human-created system, there are bound to be mistakes committed that need to be identified, fixed and learned from.  But these nay-sayers never report the abuses, mistakes, and failures that occur in the present profit-motivated (vs. improved-health-motivated) US health care system (such as it is, since it is hardly a “system” of anything other than a profit-motivated business).  And there is where the BS lies, in all of its smelly glory.

But back to the title of this blog.  It seems to be an axiom to the present GOP to bend rules anytime to fit one’s agenda, and the classic example is outlined above.  After all, it is one thing to oppose universal health care, or government-assisted health care, or mandatory health care, or anything-but-free-market-profit-based health care on pure philosophical reasons.  Those folks that really oppose government involvement in anything other than military protection and the most basic of government functions are called Libertarians.  While many may not agree with them, at least one can respect the philosophy and enjoy an honest intellectual debate on issues based upon data and merits.

But the folks who are presently representing the GOP have no such standard of honestly and pure, publicly available philosophy.  To state on the one hand that one is for free enterprise, but to then oppose competition and support laws that limit negotiation is hypocritical and dishonest.  To state one the one hand that one is for individual freedoms and law enforcement but then to support the curtailing of individual liberty in the name of national security and support torture even though national and international laws prohibit it is hypocritical and dishonest.

And to not support providing Americans with available, affordable, effective health coverage because you’re afraid that your friends in the private health care industry will lose their obscene profits is nothing short of despicable.

One thing is certain:  This certain is not your daddy’s General Motors….and it’s certainly not your daddy’s GOP, either.

And this time…we don’t love them.

Last Sunday a well-known abortion practitioner, Dr. George Tiller was shot to death in a premeditated cold blooded murder.  He was in a Lutheran Church in Topeka, Kansas, participating during services as an usher,  allegedly by Scott Roeder who fanatically believes that all abortionists are baby-killers.

Although this is not the first time that abortion doctors have been murdered in the USA by self-appointed guardians of the “faith”, it is the most recent, and seems to be getting a considerable amount of media attention.  Of course, abortion is a very controversial issue in the USA, more so than in Europe, Canada, or other industrialized western nations.

While many pro-life advocates are condemning this murder of a doctor, there are those who actually see it as “justifiable homicide”.  In fact, it is reported that Roeder himself subscribed to Prayer and Action News, a newsletter of sorts that advocated “justifiable homicide” as a way of protesting abortion.

Which side of the abortion issue one supports is not the issue here, nor should it be.  The real issue is that condemning violence while using violence is the epitome of hypocrisy.  Groups throughout human history have justified the use of violence, including torture, rape and murder, to achieve their “lofty” goals.  Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups across the globe do exactly the same thing every single day;  somehow, the fanatically self-appointed self-righteous convince themselves that they can use any means, regardless of legality or morality, to accomplish their personal agenda.

For instance, during the middle ages, Christian leadership initiated the Crusades, which they claimed to conduct to free the “holy land” where Israel now exists, from those nasty Muslim non-believers, although they also attacked, raped and murdered pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, and political enemies of the pope.   In reality, the Crusades were more about land grab, church- and personal wealth-building, and rape and murder in the name of the holiest of holies, than anything else.

All of this gives rise to the most basic of questions:  if these people truly believed (and presently believe)  in the bible, includes the commandments that direct believers to not steal or murder, etc….then how did they (and presently do they) justify murdering those who don’t share their beliefs??

It’s a truly troubling issue made all the more dangerous when one considers the myriad of organizations and self-proclaimed anti-abortion activists right here in the USA that openly advocate “killing for peace”.  A search of the internet reveals a number of people who have written about the justification of murdering abortionists in the name of  such things as religious righteousness.  And some of the more militant anti-abortion organizations are tied to such extremist groups as white-supremacists who are anti-abortion in all cases except in the case of an African-American.

Perhaps what is most troubling is that many pro-life folks who would never engage in a criminal act against an abortion doctor or clinic still sympathize with anyone who commits an act of violence against the pro-choice providers.  It unfortunately says that we, as a people, are not yet evolved beyond the use of violence even though we, ourselves, wouldn’t personally commit the act.  As long as we continue to support, albeit in secret, these types of behaviors, we should not be too surprised to learn that our country supported torture in the name of national security, or invasion of a sovereign country that was no threat to us based upon some nebulous idea that it had weapons of mass destruction.

No reasonable person sees abortion as an acceptable a form of regular birth control, and no reasonable person believes that most women seeking an abortion don’t find the option extremely difficult to choose.  But one is struck by the extremist folks who are against all forms of abortion at all times under all circumstances, no matter what is at stake, including the life of the mother.  They like to preach their inflexible single-minded view at anyone they think they can get to listen, while concurrently not offering to adopt those children brought to term as a result for their efforts to scare women away from abortion.

And by the way, these folks also tend to be the ones that are vehemently against modern sex education, including comprehensive information on birth control, while supporting “abstinence only”.  But “absinence only” is a dismal failure everywhere it’s promoted.

And if kids aren’t taught about birth control, what do you think is going to happen?  Unwanted pregnanacies, maybe?

Ask Bristol Palin about that one.

In what can only be described as a win-win act of strategic brilliance, president Obama yesterday nominated federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill the seat on the US Supreme Court (a.k.a the Supremes) being vacated by retiring supreme court justice David Souter.

Justice Souter has been the swing vote on the supreme court ever since the previous swing vote, Sandra Day O’Conner retired and was replaced by George W. Bush with conservative Samuel Alito.  Considering that Souter was appointed by Bush 1 (W’s dad), who was considerably more centrist than his ultra-right-wing son, Alito’s appointment moved the Supremes more toward the right than it had been.  At the time, the GOP ruled both house of congress and essentially rubber-stamped Alito’s, and later supreme court chief justice John Roberts‘ nominations, ensuring the Supremes’ more conservative move would be cast in stone.

It is notable that at the time, the GOP-controlled congress threatened the democratic party minority with what they called the “nuclear option” in the senate, wherein they would change the rules to disallow filibusters on court nominees by the senate’s minority party, which in this case was the democratic party.  In other words, the rules allow for the minority party to block a vote on a nominee by talking non-stop until the nominee’s name is withdrawn.  The GOP majority was going to eliminate this 200-year-old senate rule so that the minority democrats would be rendered essentially non-existent.  At the last minute, this action was averted by an agreement among 14 moderate senators of both parties, known as the “gang of 14“.

It seems the shoe is on the other foot now, since the dems presently control the senate.  But in this case, the GOP, which has used its filibuster powers to obstruct the work of the senate in the recent past, probably won’t even try to do a filibuster against Sotomayor, even though many conservatives in the GOP oppose her.  Why?

Sotomayor is a Latina of Puerto Rican descent, as well as a woman.  She is a highly accomplished judge with 30 years of legal experience, 17 years of which been as a judge.  She has previously been nominated for judge on different courts by both republican George Bush 1 and democrat Bill Clinton, and confirmed by the senate both times.  She is an example of a person who was born into poverty, and in spite of that, was able to raise herself up through dedication to hard work and education, excelling in both.

She is best classified as a centrist with left-facing leanings, very similar to Barack Obama.  Republican ex-presidential nominee John McCain has even said recently that even though he probably wouldn’t have nominated her himself, that elections have consequences and she is the winner’s choice.

The ultra-conservatives in the GOP, who cannot stand anything about Sotomayor including her gender, heritage, and political and judicial leanings, are fixing for a fight in a desperate effort to derail her from final senate confirmation as the next Supreme.  In true “Tricky-Dick” Cheney-esque fashion, they are willing to ignore reality and go after her with everything and anything they can find, including statements taken out of context in speeches she has made in the past.

One can only hope that they do.  The moribund GOP can only further drive more nails into their own coffin if they go after a Hispanic American woman.  Hispanics, after all, make up 48 million of the 300 million-plus American citizens.  Even more mathematically significant is that women make up slightly over half of the population.  And people who are increasing disgusted with the party they used to identify themselves with, the GOP, are leaving it in increasing numbers.

So if the ultra-conservative Cheney-Rushie core of the GOP, also known as the folks that brought us constitutional destruction, torture, abstinence only sex-education, unbridled corporate corruption, greed, and recession, and generalized world disapproval of the USA want to further exercise their warped judgement and take warped action that further demonstrates the lunacy of the Cheney-Rushie policies, We, the PEOPLE!! says, DO IT!!!! We’ll even hold the microphone for them so they can spout their hatred-mongering tripe at their ultra-extreme ultra-religious-right wing base…and while the rest of the world watches in amusement.

In the meantime, because of the great multi-level choice by president Obama, it’s easy to predict that Sonia Sotomajor will be a hit with the senate and ultimately, with the Supremes themselves.  President Obama probably could not have picked another nominee who covers so many political and judicial bases at once.

And when all is said and done, those ultra-extreme right wingers on the GOP side of the senate aisle and their most ardent supporters will lose this fight and lose it huge.  And why?

Sometime you just have to pick your fights, and this is the really the wrong one.  But the ultra-right is filled with hatred and probably not listening.

And that’s why we love them. 

Michael Steele, the new chairman of the republican national committee RNC), gave a very rousing but disappointing speech yesterday to a state republican leadership meeting in Washington, DC.  This meeting had been primarily called to discuss future strategies of the republican party (GOP) in their attempt to reinvent and redefine themselves in the wake of devastating defeats at the polls in 2006 and 2008.

Michael Steele has been embattled during the early days of his leadership of the RNC.  While the good ol’ boys of the GOP have been licking their wounds and pointing their fingers at everyone besides themselves for the fall of GOP influence in the USA, Steele was considered to be a breath of fresh air, a new face to re-invigorate the GOP and prevent further backslide of the party towards the garbage heap of history.

As much as most in the GOP publicly agreed with the “fresh breath” approach, in reality nothing could have been further from the truth.  The last thing the old guard of the GOP wanted to do was change the tired old tactics of attacking the other side without providing even cursory or rudimentary alternative truly workable solutions to the problems of the economy, global warming, corporate greed, or the US health care disgrace.

Instead, they enlisted their old friend Rush Limp-something-or-other to attack Steele, after Steele accurately described the radio hate-monger as an “entertainer” (which is he) that is sometimes “ugly” and “incendiary” in the things he says over the air (which he is).  But these old guard GOP-ers aren’t the least bit interested in truth;  They’re only interested in maintaining the status quo and assigning blame for everything to everyone besides themselves.

Thus it was a disappointing surprise to hear Steele make statements in his speech yesterday that sounded like a total capitulation to the GOP’s old guard tactics.  He stated, in part, “The era of apologizing for Republican mistakes of the past is now officially over….The time for trying to fix or focus on the past has ended….We have turned the corner on regret, recrimination, self-pity and self-doubt.”

He went on to say that the focus should now be on attacking President Obama and his policies.  There was no mention of formulating alternative proposals that actually have a real chance of working.  Instead, he told his listeners that the American people need to hear how bad Obama and his policies are hurting America.

The saddest thing about Steele’s speech was that it did not sound as though Steele, or his centrist views, had anything to do with the message of the speech.  Instead, it sounded like it was made by a man under siege by a close-minded and powerful ultra-conservative arm of his own party.  The lofty idea of reviewing past mistakes and learning from them (so as not to repeat them) seemed to be completely gone, with one notable exception:  Steele did admit that the GOP had left behind its traditional ideals of fiscal conservatism by growing government over the past eight years.  But that admission by itself was not enough to disguise the fact that Steele, who was going to transform the GOP into a party that centrists and independents could support, has evidently abandoned that goal in favor of keeping the real back-room, backward-thinking GOP leadership happy with his performance.

That’s really too bad for the GOP, which has been losing support for several years in every demographic except people who attend church at least once a week, a.k.a. the extreme religious right and the evangelicals who want every person on Earth to believe what they believe.  But they are not enough to see the GOP to victory.  Yet, the GOP old guard still seems to think that it can convince Americans that the party is somehow mainstream.  Continuing to do the same thing over and over, expecting a different result, is Einstein’s definition of insanity.

Thus, the GOP has neutralized Michael Steele while continuing to believe that screaming attacks against everything Obama does loud enough and often enough is the best strategy to victory in 2010 and beyond.  More importantly is that by silencing Steele, they have attempted to change the rules, thinking that they can win support and elections by stifling self-examination and self-correction.

It’s much like they thought that stripping both basic human and judicial rights from detainees at Guantanamo might somehow get them convictions to prove that they were right to strip away those rights.  After all, if you can’t win a court case on the merits of the true evidence, make some up!  Use torture and lack of access to laws and treaties (like the Geneva Conventions) to force the creation of your “evidence” while refusing to allow defense evidence to the contrary.  Change the rules of the game to win.  At any cost.

The only problem is that as well as it worked in the past for the GOP, it has an equal chance of working this time:

None at all.  But they’re still not listening.

We, the PEOPLE prides itself on the reality that facts and fairness guide the writing of this blog.  As a result, the articles offered are replete with internet links so that readers can check sources for themselves.  However, no amount of links can explain the bizarre behavior being exhibited by the ex-vice president of the United States, “Tricky Dick” Cheney.  Of course, we’re talking about recent statements made by “Tricky Dick”, which indicate a complete nose-thumbing at the fact that the GOP is in real trouble right now, with only 20% of the people even admitting they’re republicans.

Even a cursory review of recent history will make painfully obvious that this country and world in general wanted change, and absolutely did not want “more of the same.  President Obama is wildly popular both at home and abroad, as evidenced by the most recent national polls showing his latest approval rating as of today at 65%.

In contrast, on his best day as vice-president, Cheney couldn’t match half that.   Indeed, in the past two years, “Tricky Dick”’s approval rating plummeted to historical lows.  To wit, the latest poll shows his approval rating at 18%, which is unbelievably awful, particularly when you consider that “Tricky Dick” has been out of office for almost four months!

Even not-very-popular ex-president George W. Bush has realized that the best course of action for his legacy is to remain silent and hope that over time the dust will settle and people will think less unfavorably about his horribly messed up administration.  But “Tricky Dick” just hasn’t been able to resist the spotlight and the media coverage.  He has become the darling of Fox news and a curse on the GOP.

Although probably pointless, it is at least somewhat understandable that “Tricky Dick” would attack President Obama for Obama’s prohibition on torture, and anything else he can think of.  After all, “Tricky Dick” repeatedly approved of the use of torture, and he still defends it.   But more importantly, Tricky Dick” is keenly aware of the possibility that he might eventually be prosecuted for war crimes, so of course he is going to attempt to garner as much support for his approval of torture as he can muster.

Amazingly, “Tricky Dick” has exceeded even this weird behavior by now crossing over to attacking well-respected moderate republicans!  Specifically, he recently took on  former Bush administration Secretary of State Colin Powell.  “Tricky Dick” questioned whether Powell is even still a republican, and stated he’d rather follow loud-mouth hate-monger Rush into political battle than Powell, who is genuinely liked on both sides of the aisle.

This attack on Powell, whom, by the way, previously served as Chairman of the US military Joint Chiefs of Staff under then-Defense Secretary “Tricky Dick” during the 1991 Gulf War, is baffling at best, and utterly disastrous at worst, for the republican party.  Remember that the GOP is desperately trying to rebuild itself after the pounding it has taken in the past two national elections, in addition to the shrinking number of Americans willing to admit they’re registered republicans.

So imagine the additional damage “Tricky Dick” is doing to the greater GOP’s rebirth efforts by supporting his totally rejected “more of the same, because we were so successful” philosophy.  Does he really believe that anyone outside of the hate-radio mongers and the ultra-extremist lunatic fringe right wing of the GOP is even listening to him?  Does he really believe that he is somehow recruiting new members for the GOP from among those that abandoned the GOP just a few short months ago?

There is a word that describes what “Tricky Dick” is doing.  He is continuing to promote the failed policies of the Bush administration, which have been so roundly rejected by the electorate and by a clear majority of Americans and others throughout the world.  “Tricky Dick” seems to think that if he continues to promote the failures, that he will achieve a different result:  that somehow people will have a different reaction than the one that has led to an 18% approval rating for this “shooter of friends”;  no less a great mind than Albert Einstein defined this as insanity!

It did warm the heart, however, to see Liz Cheney, “Tricky Dick”’s daughter, defend him, just as a daughter should.  But that was before she said that the White House is siding with the terrorists.  No one in their right mind with even a scintilla of education and knowledge of the real world is going to believe that.  But she either doesn’t care, or doesn’t get it.

Just like her dad.

One can only imagine what the moderates in the GOP are going through, trying as they are to rebuild their almost completely irrelevant political party.  They must cringe and run for cover every time “Tricky Dick” (and now his daughter as well) opens his mouth.

And since he never shut up before, there’s no reason to believe that he’ll heed the moderates in his own moribund political party and disappear for awhile.  He’ll just keep shooting of his mouth (if you’ll pardon the pun    ) making it even more difficult for the GOP to rebuild and reboot, as even Star Trek has.

And that’s why we love him. 

Yesterday it was announced that a well-know ultra-right-wing extremist hate-radio talk show host who broadcasts his hate-mongering propaganda from San Francisco, California, was placed on a list of twenty-two people from various countries who are not welcome in England, also known as the United Kingdom, or UK for short.

All of the folks on this blacklist of people banned from entering the UK are listed by the UK’s Home Secretary (similar to the US Secretary of State) Jacqui Smith.  She placed this particular hate-mongering US talk radio host on the list “for fostering extremism or hatred between October 2008 and March 2009.”  You can read more about it HERE.

Before getting into some of the examples of the hate-spewing that this hate-for-money talk show host has engaged in on his show, it is important to note that We, the People strongly supports everyone’s right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, tempered as it is (and should be) by laws against libel, slander, and perjury.  As such, we support the hate-radio hosts’ right to spew their tripe over the airwaves, even if we hate their message.

As long as there are people who are willing to listen to him, he and others like him will have a forum from which to try to get people to blame and hate other people for everything the liosteners don’t like about anything.  And there clearly is an audience for hate radio, since it is reported that perhaps ten million people listen to this particular clown on over 350 radio stations in the US alone.

If you are one who listens to hate-radio hosts, hopefully you do so only for the same reasons that intelligent people watch fantasy movies and listen to rap music:  for entertainment.  If, on the other hand, you listen to these students of Nazi propaganda methods for NEWS AND INFORMATION, and/or so you will have a target to blame and hate, then you are sadly misguided.

Political talk radio, whether conservative (98%) or liberal (2%) is a form of entertainment, akin to watching wrestling on TV.  Nonetheless, the hate-radio host being discussed here has really crossed the line of good taste, as many do.  Though not illegal, it can be very dangerous because the uninformed listener might take the message as absolute truth.

For example, this guy has claimed publicly on his show that autistic children are just faking it, claiming “You know what autism is? I’ll tell you what autism is,” according to a copy of the broadcast captured on mediamatters.org. “In 99 percent of the cases, it’s a brat who hasn’t been told to cut the act out.  That’s what autism is.”  Read more about this HERE.

He also has recently stated that the swine flu got imported into the US by illegal immigrants for the sole purpose of spreading it to the people who live here.   He stated, “”Make no mistake about it:  Illegal aliens are the carriers of the new strain of human-swine avian flu from Mexico.”  Read more HERE.

We also reserve the self-same right to free expression to let people know the real deal about folks like this.  This guy is in good company on the UK blacklist, which also includes both the founder and daughter of the Westboro Baptist Church, the group from Topeka, Kansas that rejoices (and pickets) the death  and funerals of American soldiers killed in Iraq and elsewhere, claiming God hates America and loves to kill the GIs as punishment for the USA’s tolerance of gays and lesbians.

The hate-radio host claims he’s going to sue the Home Secretary of the UK for damages, claiming he’s been somehow harmed and that her inclusion of him on the UK’s blacklist somehow has painted a target on his back, and that others will now come after him.  Has he forgotten all the hate he has spewed over the years at others?  Does he really think that he isn’t already as much of a target for some lunatic as he ever was or will be (if at all)?

Of course, by filing a lawsuit (if he actually does), he will obviously keep himself in the limelight and center of publicity, which is good for business.  It’s exactly what his hate-radio competitor Rushie did when he took on President Obama shortly after the presidential inauguration in January.  The hate-radio host will stop at nothing to increase his potential monetary intake.  In fact, one might even believe that he personally engineered being placed on the UK blacklist expressly for this express self-enhancing purpose.

Of course, one might believe that, if one was prone to believing in such things.  

“Welcome, ladies and gentlemen and children of all ages, to the world-famous Museum of History’s Failures!  Please excuse the dust on some of the exhibits.  We try hard to keep everything spotless, but some displays just attract the dust of uselessness like a magnet.

“The first stop on our tour is the exhibit we call “Failed Free Market Practices”, an archaic form of economic system that prevailed from the beginning of the industrial revolution through the beginning of the 21st century.  You will note the small children working, with sweat pouring off their filthy faces as they toil 14 hours a day in a stuffy unsafe factory, known as a sweat shop because of the hot and stuffy working conditions.  Also note the industrialist factory owner in his expensive clothes, counting his money as he laughs at the the children working below him.

“Next is a replica of a conference room on Wall Street, New York at the beginning of the 21st century.  Note the seated folks devising methods of offering no-down-payment mortgages to people who cannot really afford them.  Press any of the sound buttons and you will hear them discuss how much money they’ll make when the mortgage rate jumps from the unrealistically low initial 2% to 24.99% after three years.  Yes, folks, these things really did happen, and it caused millions to lose their homes. And the entire world was ultimately plunged into a recession. Over two billion lost jobs by the time it was finally over.

“Who asked how people allowed this to happen?…  Well, son, it turns out that there was a political party back then known as the GOP, for “Grand Old Party”, which was actually the Republican Party.  Please walk this way as we make our way to the GOP exhibit, as I explain the rise and fall of the GOP.

“In President Abraham Lincoln’s time, it was the party of liberally social ideas.  But something happened to it.  It became more and more conservative, believing on the one hand that personal liberty and freedom were very important, but that government’s only real function should be to defend the country from outside military threats, and not much else, including personal liberties.  GOP began to believe that taxes should not fund anything else.

“In 1980 a charismatic actor named Ronald Reagan, also known as Ronnie the Ray-Gun because of his love of star wars, became president.  He pushed huge tax cuts to the rich under the later-proven false premise that if the rich have more money, they’ll use some of it for more and better-paying jobs for the poor and middle class.  He never told anyone is that the rich would use the money to get even richer, by exporting American jobs overseas where they could re-institute sweat-shop-like factories at a fraction of the cost of American factories.  So they became richer while the middle class became poorer.

“Under the Ronnie Ray-Gun administration, the United States also got poorer, because tax revenues were reduced by the rich tax cuts, while the federal budget grew hugely, resulting in the biggest budget deficits and national debt in history.  Yet, that was nothing compared to what happened next.

“At the opening of the 21st century, another GOP-republican became president.  George W. Bush, known to millions simply as W (for whacked) came into office in history’s closest (stolen?) election and proceeded to start an unnecessary war with a country then known as “Iraq”, whose leader had once tried to assassinate W’s father.

“W gave the rich another huge tax cut, yet he raised federal spending and the budget deficit and national debt to new and unprecedented heights.  The GOP controlled the US Congress for six years of W’s eight years and rubber-stamped everything W wanted.  While all of this was happening, Wall Street was stealing the country blind with their greed-driven policies, as you all saw in the last archaic history exhibit.

“Additionally, W gave the fundamentalist religious extremist right-wing fanatics of the USA unprecedented control over the running of the federal government and its agencies, laws and policies, negatively affecting everyone.

“All of this was so bad that it drove the GOP into its ultimate extinction.

“By the time W’s reign of terror was over, only 20% or so of America’s citizens would even admit they were republicans, mostly from the southern, formerly slavery-supporting states.  The rest of the GOP supporters began realizing that the party was “W”hacked and wanted no part of it.

“Ah!  Here we are:  the “Arlen Specter ‘Flip GOP the Bird’” exhibit.  Notice the formerly republican Pennsylvania senator standing in the Capitol building, middle finger of his right hand raised in a ceremonial rejection of an elephant photograph, which was symbolic of the GOP.  Standing next to him is Olympia Snow, the now-formerly republican senator from the state of Maine, awaiting her turn to do the same.  This display represents the beginning of the mass exodus from the sinking GOP.

“Any questions?  No?  Then let’s proceed to the next exhibit called “Before Universal Health Care”, which displays folks dead or dying from swine flu after they lost their jobs and health care in the recession…remember that?…and couldn’t afford basic human medical care.

“I know I know.  Incredible, the brutal past, huh?”

Just when we thought we knew the real story about the CIA torturing program that we had been told began with four legal opinions from the Bush Justice Department in August 2002 and May 2005, the US Senate Armed Services Committee has just released a report based upon their recent investigative hearings on Capitol Hill.

This report clearly indicates that high level Bush administration officials in both the intelligence community and the military began planning to torture captives they did not yet even have in custody yet in December 2001.  These officials did so by calling for training of interrogators in torture techniques such as waterboarding as many as 166 times in two days, exposure to extremes of heat and cold, sleep deprivation for up to eleven days and other forms of physical and mental pain and extreme duress.  Some even expressed an eagerness to begin such “harsh” interrogations, as repulsive as that fact is to many of the rest of us.

This new information flies in the face of Bush administration claims that they only resorted to torture as a “last resort” when other forms of interrogation failed to extract information from captives.  it also flies in the face of claims made by George W. Bush himself said on March 23, 2003, at the start of the US invasion of Iraq, “I expect those people to be treated humanely. If not, the people who mistreat the prisoners will be treated as war criminals.”

And in a huge burst of arrogance, hypocrisy, and Nazi-like propaganda, on March 24, 2003, Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said, “It is a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions to humiliate and abuse prisoners of war or to harm them in any way.  As President Bush said yesterday, those who harm POWs will be found and punished as war criminals.”

Finally, as if to ensure that everyone listening to this tripe would be convinced of the “high-morale fiber” of this corrupt administration’s group of thugs, on March 25, 2003, then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said “, “In recent days, the world has witnessed further evidence of their [Iraqi] brutality and their disregard for the laws of war.  Their treatment of coalition POWs is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.”

This was right after Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz stated “the Geneva Convention is very clear on the rules for treating prisoners.. They’re not supposed to be tortured or abused; they’re not supposed to be intimidated; they’re not supposed to be made public displays of humiliation or insult, and we’re going to be in a position to hold those Iraqi officials who are mistreating our prisoners accountable, and they’ve got to stop.”

Gee whiz…what about when WE do it??

As citizens of a country that was founded on high morale values, democratic principals, and the philosophical high ground of individual rights and freedom, liberty and justice of all, We, the PEOPLE!! is OUTRAGED!  That outrage is not only fueled by the Bush administration’s predilection for brutal treatment of prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions which the USA signed onto in good faith, but also by the fact that this brutality began its US life in 2001, before the US Justice Department began its secret series of rationalizing memos justifying such heinous treatment of prisoners.  This is in complete opposition to what we had been led to believe was the memos preceding and precipitating the torture program.

This is extremely significant because if true, it means that the memos were written after the fact as a result of the already-implemented torture program, instead of the torture program resulting from the clearly flawed memos.  The situation has thus begun to look more and more like an attempt by the Bush administration to provide cover for the perpetrators of this war crime activity after the fact.  In other words, a cover-up.  Shades of Nixon and Watergate!

Last week, President Obama announced that any CIA operatives that had acted in accordance with the Bush Justice Department memos written by Bush Justice Department political appointees John Yoo, who was the leading author of the 2002 interrogation memos which were signed by Jay S. Bybee, from the Office of Legal Counsel, and three in 2005 by Steven G. Bradbury, would be free from prosecution, as long as they were acting in good faith in compliance with the memos.  While the president seemed to be abandoning the concept that was considered inviolate over half a century ago during the Nuremberg trials of nazi war criminals of 1945-1949 (namely that “I was only following orders” is no excuse), at least it was understandable that the president was not interested in prosecuting the end-users of higher officials’ decision-making.

But in light of the latest revelations from the Senate Armed Services Committee report, the president’s thought process on this issue is no longer valid.  Considering that some of those same federal government employees potentially were conducting torture sessions under the guise of “protecting the nation” before any Justice Department legal opinion/direction was written blows away any justification for amnesty.

What the president ought to do, and the senate will probably do anyway, is to appoint a special prosecutor to definitively investigate this horrible episode in American History and develop valid charges against those that committed war crimes and/or federal law or international law, as well as those who attempted to provide cover by either directing the Justice Department to justify torture, or accepted that direction from higher up and wrote the justifications.

And no one involved it the Bush administration’s torture plans and programs should be granted “amnesty”, regardless of how high up the chain of command this criminal activity goes.  Certainly, we did not allow such amnesty during the Nuremberg Trials or when Saddam Hussein was tried for gassing his own people, nor will we provide it to his hired torturers.

So why wouldn’t the same standard of justice apply to us?

In 2004 the supreme court of the state of Massachusetts, USA ruled that discriminating against gays & lesbians by not allowing them to marry was a violation of the the state constitution.  With that legal decision, Massachusetts became the first state in the USA to allow full-fledged same-sex marriages, and it joined a growing world-wide group of countries in Europe, Canada and elsewhere that allow the legal institution and contract of marriage regardless of sexual orientation or gender.

Since that time, another four states in the USA have joined Massachusetts in permitting same-sex marriage, with New York State about to consider the issue.

Extreme right-wing and religious groups in the USA were incensed and outraged by this and vowed to fight until the decision was reversed.  They joined in using every tactic they could think of to amend the constitution in Massachusetts, but were unable to impact the implementation of this ground-breaking decision.  Nonetheless, these groups continue to fight the legality of gays and lesbians joining in legal matrimony at every opportunity they can find.

Their opposition to same-sex marriages is diverse, depending upon which group is advocating against same-sex marriage at the moment.  And even among these groups, there is no agreement as to what marriage truly is.

In the strictly legal sense, marriage is simply a legal contract between two people that primarily addresses money issues and benefits, similar to those in an employment agreement.  Married people enjoy certain state-derived, state-supplied, and/or state enforced benefits that single people do not enjoy.  For instance, if a spouse dies without leaving an express last will and testament, the state ensures that the dead spouse’s assets are divided between the surviving spouse and any offspring, according to the probate laws of the state in which the married couple resides.

This legal arrangement or “corporate partnership”, if you will, has absolutely nothing to do with the judeo-christian-muslim concept of religious marriage, which is a vowed bond before a deity between a man and a woman, with the express purpose of being fruitful and multiplying the members of the species.  In fact, if one researches the origins of marriage in the religious sense, one will find that ancient marriage primarily protected men and restricted women, although the woman did achieve a certain level of physical protection in that she had a place to live and food to feed herself and her children.

While it is true that over the centuries the religious marriage became, and was initially tied to, state-governed, or civil marriage, that bond started to disintegrate with the adoption of constitutions guaranteeing the right of individuals to practice the religion of their choice, or no religion at all, with the state staying out of religious matters while it administered non-religious governmental affairs.  And over time, the supreme courts of modern governments have further defined this separation between church and state, much to the chagrin of evangelicals who believe that government should still be enforcing their personal religious beliefs on everyone.

While most modern western governments now operate in this non-religious fashion, exceptions clearly exist in nations such as Iran and some Arab states, among others.  In those countries, violation of religious laws can be punishable by torture or death, enforced and imposed by the state.  Thankfully, that is not the case here.

Of the two primary groups that oppose same-sex marriage, one consists of some evangelical organizations in the USA who would welcome a religious code of laws into government.  One well known example is the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, which you can also read more about HERE and HERE, if your stomach can handle it.  This fanatical fringe group of ultra-right-wing-extremists-religious zealots preaches that God kills American soldiers in Iraq in retribution for the USA’s tolerance of gays & lesbians.  They represent the ultra-fanatical extreme, but there are other religious groups somewhat less demonstrative that oppose same-sex marriage on biblical grounds as well.

Another distinct group of folks opposing same-sex marriage, as well as any easing of restrictions against gays or lesbians, are the homophobes, or people who suffer from homophobia, described as an irrational fear, hatred and/or disgust of and for homosexual people.  There is no logic to this condition, and these folks are in need of medical or psychological help.

Thus, there are actually two really two different forms of marriage, one civil and the other religious.  As long as folks agree to keep these legally separated, the religious objections to same-sex marriage can be preserved in religious marriage ceremonies without hurting the same sex couples who wish to be treated as equal citizens.  That is a right, after all, which they certainly possess under the rule of law.  And while homophobes will never be comfortable with this and there is no logical accommodation for their illness, it is the ultra-religious-right that is organized and that simply refuses to separate the two forms of marriage.

In fact, they contend that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry civilly, then what’s next?  The sheep rancher in Montana that will want to marry the little ewe that is always running away from him for some obscure reason?  The woman who wants to marry her shower head?  Dogs marrying cats?  Chairs marrying tables?  Live folks marrying dead people?  Where will it all end?

On the other hand, why would anyone even care?   Is it because they’re really trying to save us from ourselves?  Or is it that they are so personally insecure, they simply can’t stand diversity?

Or maybe, just maybe…it’s the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, might be happy (a definition of  “Puritanism”).

Watching Sarah Palin can be very entertaining.  From strictly a physical attractiveness point of view, she is a pretty, shapely woman with nice hair who is fun to look at.  If one is not from the upper Midwest of the USA, it can be either fun or annoying, but certainly interesting, to listen to her “Fargo” (the movie) accent. And if you’re into the great outdoors and all it offers, she’s definitely interesting to behold with a rifle in her hand.

But if you listen carefully when she speaks as a presidential-nominee-wannabe, an additional factor appears….a feeling of dread.  The dread comes from the fact that some Americans actually believe that Sarah understands all the nuances (including the US constitution and federal law) associated with her statements.  Some of these folks may also believe that the Earth is flat and that Elvis lives, with the assistance of the Zork aliens and their life-extending techologies.

For starters, remember her claims regarding her foreign policy qualifications when she was running for vice-president.  She actually thought that she was convincing people of her expertise at foreign policy because she could see Russia from one of the outtermost (sparsely populated) Aleutian Islands, and because Canada abuts Alaska along its predominately unpopulated eastern border.  She neglected to explain how “seeing” a foreign country somehow provides foreign relations experience.  But maybe she didn’t know that.

She further claimed executive military command experience because, as governor, she can call out the National Guard.  Of course, she neglected to include the fact that state governors can only call out their National Guards in times of natural disasters or extreme civil unrest.  They have no authority whatsoever to use their state’s National Guard for true military operations, such as war or military deployments.  That authority rests solely with the federal government.  But maybe she didn’t know that.

Fast forward to the ex-senator from Alaska Ted Stevens debacle, who was convicted in federal court of seven felony counts of corruption. His conviction was later reversed by a federal judge because of prosecutorial misconduct, committed, by the way, by at least two US Department of Justice prosecutors who were Bush administration appointees.

Sarah Palin, upon hearing of the reversal, followed the Alaska GOP’s lead in calling for a “rerunning” of the November 2008 election, in which democrat Mark Begich defeated the republican Stevens.  Of course, Palin neglected to mention that there is no legal mechanism in place for such an election rerun, nor did she mention that the fact that Stevens’ conviction was vacated due to prosecutor misconduct did not, in itself, prove Stevens innocent of any of the charges against him.  Additionally, she didn’t mention that she has a vested interest in having Stevens reinserted into a US senate seat so that he would be too busy to run against her for governor in 2010.

Not to be forgotten, she neglected to suggest that the 2000 presidential election between Al Gore and George W. Bush be rerun as well.  Maybe she didn’t know how bad the Bush administration turned out to be for America, but then, during the last campaign, in a televised interview with Charles Gibson in September 2008, she also didn’t know what the “Bush Doctrine” of pre-emptive US invasions of countries deemed dangerous by the self-same administration was.

Then just days ago, Palin decided to culminate this incredible record of public ignorance by attacking President Obama regarding defense department proposed budget cuts, regarding missile defense, or the shooting down of missiles by missiles.  She said “Alaska’s strategic location and the system in place here have proven invaluable in defending the nation….”  Beside the fact that she doesn’t get to make any decisions about “defending the nation”, what “invaluable proof” is she talking about?  And if the “system” is “in place here”, what is she talking about?

She went on to categorize Alaska as “a sovereign state of the United States”.  This statement alone raised a lot of eyebrows.  According to Websters Dictionary, sovereign means “having sovereignty” and sovereignty is defined as  “supreme power especially over a body politic b: freedom from external control : autonomy c: controlling influence3: one that is sovereign ; especially : an autonomous state”.  In truth, neither Alaska nor any other state of the USA is autonomous, free from external control, or exercising of supreme power;  the US federal government is the ultimate power and authority in the US.  But maybe Palin didn’t know that.

She evidently also didn’t know that the proposed defense budget cuts do not eliminate missile defense; they actually enhance this evolving technology by further refining the research and development on technology that already works, as opposed to incredibly expensive, unproven technologies that may or may not ever be deployable.  Even John McCain, Palin’s 2008 running mate and himself a strong career military man states in a written statement reported by no less than Fox News that Gates’ proposed defense budget was , “major step in the right direction…it has long been necessary to shift spending away from weapon systems plagued by scheduling and cost overruns to ones that strike the correct balance between the needs of our deployed forces and the requirements for meeting the emerging threats of tomorrow”.

In criticizing the proposed defense budget, which has been developed by folks who know a lot more about such things than Palin, she also neglected to mention that Hawaii is under much greater threat of an incoming enemy missile than Alaska is.  Hawaii is, after all, the home of the US Naval Base at Pearl Harbor.  That’s the place the Japanese attacked in 1941.

But maybe Palin didn’t know that.  She certainly has proven repeatedly that she doesn’t do a lot of research.  But still, she’s entertaining to watch.  In fact, if she keeps making these types of “I-don’t-know-what-I’m-talking-about” statements, she’s going to entertain herself right out of any chance of being nominated for president in 2012.

And that’s why we love her. 

If you frequent some of the more conservative blogs, or have friends whom you could probably classify as right wing in the extreme, you have probably heard an endless array of Obama-bashing….everything from his economic recovery agenda to the fact that he removed the ban on stem cell research, to his choices for key cabinet posts, to (name your favorite bashing topic HERE).  Their basic mantra is always the same:  President Obama and the democrats are never right, just as the republicans in congress and even the former white house administration are never wrong.

Never mind that Barack Obama continues to garner over 64% approval rating according to PollingReport.com, while concurrently the republicans in congress can only achieve a dismal 18% approval rating, also according to PollingReport.com.  In fact, the republicans are acting as though they won the election and the polls are somehow spirited by people who have somehow lost their perspective.  According to some of the blogs and right-wing radio talk show hosts, some conservatives actually believe that President Obama won just by slick propaganda and slight-of-hand, deluding the stupidly impressionable and somehow hypnotized American electorate.

One loyal reader of We, the PEOPLE!! couldn’t resist answering one of those blog claiming that Obama hoodwinked the ignorant and gullible American masses.  His response to the ultra-right republican mantra was so good it is worth sharing with everyone:

“I was recently reading a right wing blog and this line jumped out at me:

“Again, how can anyone explain even the existence of Obama if not for the fact the Liberal Nutroots created a such crazy propaganda that ten of millions of voters believe?

“It can easily be explained, but not if you refuse to look in the mirror.  Bush & Company, with the help of Republicans, Big Government Conservatives and, yes, even some Democrats too, have presided over some of the worst policy failures in American history.

“A rushed war for WMDs that did not exist and a war whose justification changed as each previous justification was proven false.   Thousands have died.   Billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent.  No WMDs were ever found.  No connection to those that attacked us on 9/11 was ever proven.  Any dissent was, however, “aiding the enemy” or “not supporting the troop.  One justification after another was offered for policies that we all know damn well would have been condemned by  Republicans/Conservatives/ Limbaugh if Democrats did the same.

“The end result has been that Al Qaeda is growing in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Osama Bin Laden is still on the loose, international hostility was unleashed toward us, and the economy has taken a job-eliminating nose-dive.

“The attack on 9/11 came after the US had been warned that Osama Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US.  The memo was ignored because, supposedly, it did not spell out all the details of the attack.  What’s a president to do?  Bush went on vacation.  We know the rest of the story.. Not his fault!

“We were told that a strong economy and reduced deficits could only be promised and delivered if we gave tax breaks to the top income earners, and,  for the first time in history, during a time of war.  Any dissent was “class warfare”.  We know the results here, too.  However, deficits are either not important or they are the fault of someone else, if you listen to Republicans.

“They pushed for deregulation of the banking and investment industry in the belief that a totally free economic system is best, and that regulation is bad and government can’t do anything right. “Government is the problem”, they quoted the “old Gipper” Ronald Reagan as saying.  We were further assured three years ago when these taxes were again cut that we would have prosperity.  And not to worry, the financial market will self regulate.  Does anyone, even those that touted these policies the loudest, really believe that any of this has worked out at planned?

“And let’s look at the Karina response fiasco.  Once again, it was “blame-the-Democrats” time.  But unlike many Republicans, most Americans agree that the Federal Government has a role to play in disaster relief, and that if the local officials screw things up, the Feds should be prepared.  If you think the Federal response to Katrina was “a heck of a good job” well, then I guess you voted Republican.

“Understand this:  All these failures are due to the failure of Conservative and Republican ideology to address the problems of today.  Republicans offered only more of the same wine packaged in new bottles, the worse of which was Sarah Palin.  Most people realized that and voted for change..any change.

“Those are only my thoughts, but what else would you expect from a “Liberal Nutroot” who falls for Liberal “propaganda”?”

In fairness, it certainly does seem that many republicans are visibly running away from the hated Bush legacy as fast as they can, a legacy which, by the way, they helped to implement.   With the mid-term elections only a short eighteen months away, one would think that bashing President Obama for implementing change from that past would be the last thing that republicans would want to do, particularly considering the clear message that the latest polls indicate the American people are sending.

But then, many of these republicans didn’t listen in 2006 nor in 2008.  Maybe they’re not good at listening.  After all, it’s hard to listen when you’re busy shouting at the rain.

Ah, Mexico…the mere word elicits images of sunny, sandy beaches, clear blue waters, colorful decor, friendly people, spicy food, great tequila, Kahlua, endless partying, boating deep sea fishing, cavorting with the rich and famous…Puerto Vallarta, Cancun, Cabo San Lucas, Acapulco, the Mayan ruins…the list of pleasure resorts and attractions is endless.  Those that have experienced any or all of these will look back upon those experiences with fondness and longing to do it all again.

But then, there’s the cold, dark force of reality as to what Mexico is becoming:  one of the world’s major illegal drug suppliers.  And the fact that it sits across the long southern border of the United States, coupled with the fact that the US population is the world’s largest illegal drug customer, makes this reality one that every citizen in this country is affected by, in one way or another.

The Mexican drug cartels are enormously wealthy entities, having a uncountable non-stop flow of cash coming into their coffers primarily from the US.  Their economic power is so great that they rival some of the largest corporations on the planet.  They pay no taxes, own their own armies and corps of assassins, have highly sophisticated communications networks, own endless properties, can afford to buy endless numbers of officials and law enforcement personnel with irresistible payoffs, are experts at using terror to keep people quiet and in line, and essentially are unstoppable.

The Mexican and US governments have attempted to control and contain these cartels with absolutely no success.  The American DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) has been assisting the Mexicans for years to no avail, as well as attempting to stem the tide of drugs entering the US, also to no avail.  Between the efforts of these two nations, countless billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent fighting the unwinnable fight.  Most tragically, at least tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of people have been murdered by these cartels.  And the ultimate bottom line is that any American can still get whatever drugs he or she desires whenever he or she wants, as a long as he and she have the cash to pay for it.  So the cycle goes…forever in existence and forever growing.

Some well-meaning but hopelessly misguided people believe that illegal drugs must be fought and stopped at every turn.  They argue that illegal drug use leads to all manner of crime, immoral and illegal activity, greater use of stronger, more dangerous drugs, and ultimately death.  And while there is perhaps some value to these arguments in some cases, folks promoted the exact same things about alcohol just before they succeeded in force Prohibition onto the US in 1919.

We all know how well THAT worked:  By the time Prohibition was mercifully repealed in 1933, that “Noble Experiment”, was branded a dismal failure.  Its only apparent accomplishment was the entrenchment of organized crime in the USA., sort of a la Mexican drug cartel, along with a taxpayer-funded never-ending and never-winnable law enforcement fight against it.

The idea that if drugs are illegal that we can somehow eliminate their existence, or even their easy availability, is nothing short of a pipe dream (it doesn’t work for guns, either.).  Some group has always been trying in one form or another to eliminate human vice since the humanity first became aware of such things.  Whether drugs, sex, alcohol, or even revolutionary ideas, these groups believe that superior brute force is the answer to every problem.  But human history is replete with lessons that prove that attempting to eliminate pleasurable human activity by force simply never works.  The only program that has even the remotest chance of at least partial success is fact-based education.

As a result, more and more experts are recommending that we decrinimalize present-illegal drug use and possesion of these controlled substances.  They do so not because they believe that use of these drugs is a good thing, but because they realize that we can never win this fight;  as history proves, we can only throw endless money at it…money the drug cartels are expert at catching.

Instead, by legalizing these substances, legitimate industries would rise under the free market system, and their products could be regulated and taxed.  That new tax money could be used to educate our school children about the real dangers of recreational drug use, just as we now educate them about unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, and on avoiding them .  Drugs use probably won’t go down, but it also won’t go up…since anyone can get them today anyway.

However, what will go down to the point of near-elimination is the transference of billions of dollars to the drug cartels, just as the mob saw their profits from selling bathtub gin evaporate with the repeal of Prohibition.  Without their money life-line, the cartels will cease to be profitable and the free market will more than likely eliminate most of them.  Those that survive will have to find something else illegal to sell in order to stay in business.

Another positive result of legalization would be the money saved by law enforcement in their present never-ending and never-winning battle with these cartels and neighborhood pushers.  That money can be used for other, more important endeavors, such as catching murderers, bank robbers, rapists, and terrorists for starters.

Repeating the same actions over and over and expecting a different outcome is a definition of insanity, y’know. 

Unless you’re living under a rock, you have heard about AIG, the world’s largest insurance company, which has so far received US$30 billion of US taxpayer money to remain afloat and in operation during this economic mess we are all enduring.

AIG, whose full name is American International Group, Incorporated, provides insurance to people and businesses all over the globe.  They are a very large corporation with diverse interest divisions, one of which  dove foolishly into the financial markets to increase their profit margins.  However, instead of making a bundle, they lost a huge amount of money because of their greed.  Their loses almost caused the company to go bankrupt, and the federal government had to step in to save their butts with huge wheel barrows full of taxpayer-supplied bailout cash.

Many folks were against bailing out AIG.  Their sentiment was that if a company makes stupid moves that cause it to stop being profitable, that’s what bankruptcy and/or liquidation is for.  On the simplest level, that is true.  But AIG’s case was made incredibly complex because of its size and its business tentacles entwined throughout the financial world.  Most economic experts believed that letting AIG go down would have dramatically worsened the recession.

As a result of this thinking, the Bush Administration sent a proposal to congress to bail AIG and several other companies out.  When the House and Senate bills were passed in slightly different forms, a congressional conference committee met behind closed doors to negotiate the differences.  One of those differences was that existing contracts in AIG would be honored.

From a legal point of view, the last thing the American people need is for congress to be deciding to abrogate legal contracts.  That would set a terrible precedent which everyone KNOWS would ultimately be used again and again for political purposes.  Anyone who would trust the congress to decide which legal contracts to abrogate isn’t really up on current events.

What most Americans didn’t realize (but many on the conference committee did) was that some executives at AIG, including the so-called “financial wizards” who were being paid mega-salaries to make really bad financial decisions which ultimately put AIG into its financial horror show, had signed legal contracts stipulating an annual bonus.  So AIG’s CEO Edward Liddy, who became CEO after the contracts were signed, agreed to pay out US$165 million in bonuses mandated by the contract, to AIG’s top executives.  He thus avoided potentially over a hundred lawsuits.

When word of this got out, the you-know-what hit the fan.  And rightfully so.

Some of the same AIG executives who were responsible for the toxic investments received some of this money.  Over one hundred executives received significant bonuses.  One executive at AIG received a bonus of $6.4 million.  Close to forty received bonus of $1 million or more.

Not one of them has offered to give back the bonus, even to issue an apology for trashing the company and taking the bonus anyway. Greed and arrogance in their purest form, don’t you think?

At least eleven of those receiving bonues are no longer with the company, which flies in the face of an AIG executive’s rationale that the bonuses are necessary to retain the best and the brightest.  In light of the really bad decision-making at AIG by these self-same executives who received million-dollar or more bonuses for sinking the company, this bonus-defending executive should be fired.

Keep in mind as you read this that those bonuses came out of the $30 billion bailout that all Americans are paying for.  The outrage over this is totally warranted.

Since congress was the entity that agreed to and voted in this monstrosity, it seems only fair that every senator and congressperson who voted for this bill should forfeit at least half their salaries a year until the $165 million is paid back.  And by the way, in the interest of fairness, it must be admitted that both democrats and republicans share the blame equally for this debacle.

Not a chance, though.  Instead, congress is talking about taxing the bonuses at 35% and/or making AIG pay back the bonues in addition to the arrangements to eventually pay back the bailout money.  And while at least the American people might some day see the money actually come back, there is no poetic justice to any of this.  There is only a really bad taste in everyone’s mouth, as the congress, both the dems and repubs, scramble to try to fix the barn door after all the horses have run out.

There is, however, a bright side to all of this:  FINALLY the dems and repubs in congress are working together in a bipartisan manner, even it is only to cover their collective behinds.

But, It’s a start. 

President Obama yesterday signed a US$410 billion Omnibus spending bill to fund the US government over the rest of this fiscal year.

The bill had actually been proposed by the Bush administration and finalized in the US congress before Obama even took office.  It was a leftover funding bill that should have been passed by congress and signed into law by the president before the start of the 2009 fiscal year on October 1, 2008.  But because of politics, congress instead financed the federal government through continuing resolutions.

Thus, there was ample time and tremendous opportunity for individual congressmen and senators to insert funding for pet projects for their districts and states, which ultimately can help them get reelected.  These funding inserts are called earmarks, and members from both political parties engage in this practice.  In fact, the practice peaked when the GOP controlled congress.

In the bill the president signed, US$7.7 billion of the US410 billion was for earmarks.  60% of the earmarks were submitted by democrats and 40% by republicans.  That is, by the way, the standard ratio on earmarks for the majority and minority parties.

While president Obama lamented the fact that he would sign an imperfect “leftover” bill replete with earmarks, something he campaigned against, he also pragmatically explained that the congress could not be bogged down at this critical time in an endless exercise of debating the earmarks if he vetoed the bill.  Had he in fact vetoed it, the federal government would have run out of operating funds and millions of federal workers could have been furloughed.

He was right.  That last thing the economy needs right now is more folks sent home with no paycheck.

The president also made it clear that this practice of inserting earmarks without properly evaluating their appropriateness in any bill has to change.  He presented a comprehensive plan for congress to consider which would fix this problem.

In what can only be described as incredible chutzpah in the rhetoric leading up to the signing of the bill, the GOP criticized the democrats for all of the earmarks contained in the bill.

Say what???  Isn’t this the self-same bill that republicans could easily have filibustered against in the senate?  Isn’t this the same bill that republicans inserted 40% of the earmarks?  Isn’t this the same party that made earmarking a fine art form in the recent past when they controlled congress, when the deficit and the national debt doubled under GOP control?

Furthermore, the GOP even dared Obama to veto the bill, claiming that his campaign promise to change Washington DC demanded it.  They did so knowing full well that vetoing this bill was not an option without further damaging the economy.  They also knew that the president was too smart to fall for that, and that he could not and would not veto the bill. But this gave them the opportunity to claim that he broke a campaign promise.  They said all this not to convince the president, but to attempt to bamboozle the American people into thinking that a veto was an option, when it really was not.

In other words, they continue to think that the citizens of this country are stupid.  That is a serious miscalculation on their part.  And to put the icing on the hypocrisy cake of the GOP, they never, ever demanded that the predecessor GOP president veto their earmark-laden bills when they were in power in congress.

It certainly would seem that before these folks criticize president Obama for signing a bill into which they inserted almost half of the earmarks, they should take a very close look at how the American people are perceiving the republicans in congress and the GOP in general.  According to the latest stats at pollingreport.com, 58% of registered voters disapprove of the GOP performance in congress, while only 30% approve.  The numbers for the democrats are considerably better;  45% disapprove and 45% approve. President Obama’s approval rating is 63%.

Those kinds of numbers don’t bode well for either the GOP’s credibility when they open their mouths, nor for the GOP’s chances in the 2010 mid-term elections.

But then, maybe that’s not such a bad thing. 

Because this is Bike Week, We, the PEOPLE!! was prepared to inform our diverse readership that the blog was taking a sabbatical this week.  However, a loyal reader asked to submit his own article which is satirical…or is it?  You can decide for yourself with the following from Charlie Lawrence, who also happened to submit an op-ed piece which was published in the Providence Journal, the main newspaper in Rhode Island.  You can read his remarkable published submission HERE.

Following is Charlie’s article written exclusively for We, the PEOPLE!!:

________________________________________

“After hearing the President speak and Republicans reply, and then listening to the pundits, I cannot help but think the GOP is being unfairly tarred as negative.

“The fact is the The GOP does say “YES!”, and has a positive program for this country:   YES! to much needed tax cuts for the needy and suffering top one percent;  YES! to torture;  and YES! to deficits, except, of course, when the Democrats create them;

“YES! to more military spending since spending anything less than all the world combined is “gutting our military”;  and YES! to foreign wars of aggression and torture in order to bring the blessings of liberty to the world!  God Bless America!

“The only things the GOP says NO! to are dangerous and wasteful programs, such as educating our kids, which might cause them to vote Democratic.  They also say NO! to health care programs which only eat into profits and prolong the lives of the sick.  The GOP realizes that putting Grandma on the back porch in the winter is actually an act of compassion since she will see God that much sooner.  That’s  something those bleeding heart liberals just don’t get.

“I don’t see how decent people can think otherwise. But if they do a little time on the rack it will “stretch” their minds.

“Additionally, the GOP realizes that we don’t need any government actions to correct the economy.  The miracle of the unfettered free market will take care of everything, as long as we don’t offend God by letting the gays get married or take “In God We Trust” off the money!

“We had eight wonderful years under Bush…peace prosperity, balanced budget, a growing economy, a strong dollar, freedom from foreign oil, plenty of prisons and international respect, and no terrorists attacks (except for just one which wasn’t his fault).  Don’t believe otherwise;  it’s the Liberal media again lying and trying to destroy us decent people!  I say “Why ruin a Good Thing?”  We should have elected him for another eight years . Yeah!  I know the Constitution says you can’t do that but hell, its only a piece of paper.

“I am tired of Democrats bashing the rich.  They seem to forget it’s the crumbs off their tables that feed the middle class!

“P.S.  If you’re making under $250,000 a year, you’re probably going to disagree with this.  But if you can’t make that much, you’re either chronically poor or lazy!

“God Bless America!  After all, GOP = God’s Own Party!”

______________________________________

We think Charlie deserves a shot on the Jon Stewart “Daily Show”!

For those of you that were so inclined last night, President Obama gave what many experts are classifying as the speech of his life last night.

He did not mince words or paint a falsely rosy picture of the economy or the effects of the recession which is gripping the country and the world.  What he did was, in effect, tell the nation that yes, things suck, but if we don’t take bold action, including providing immediate help to those who have lost their jobs and health care and those who have yet to lose them, then no amount of other tinkering is going to fix this, and the economic fiasco could last a decade or more.

The now-passed stimulus package is multi-faceted with both immediate and longer term assistance.  President Obama made that clear in his speech, which you can watch HERE and read HERE.

The immediate help, besides extending unemployment benefits and other immediate immediate help programs such as food stamps, also provides money to states for their financial obligations, including payrolls.  By providing that type of assistance to the states, more people remain gainfully employed and thus able to provide for their families, pay their bills and mortgages, and pay their taxes, which helps to fund the federal budget and reduce the budget deficit.  Basic math 101 stuff.

The longer term help is about saving and creating millions of jobs by fixing the nation’s infrastructure and developing alternate energy sources for all to access, which also helps fund the federal budget while providing an invaluable and necessary benefits the for entire nation.  President Obama outlined several of the programs that will be funded by the stimulus package in his speech.

To summarize, the president admitted that this entire process is clearly expensive, but that the cost of doing nothing (and spending nothing) would be much, MUCH greater.

He spoke very eloquently about the challenges ahead and made his arguments in clear, concise, coherent, articulate, grammatically correct language.  Hearing that type of oration is part of what was so wonderful about listening to the president’s speech.  It’s admittedly been a long time since American have had that opportunity.  Actually, it was quite a treat. 

Following Obama’s speech, Bobby Jindal, republican governor of Louisiana and rising GOP presidential rock star wannabe, gave the GOP response.  It is important to note that Jindal is one of only five GOP governors out of 50 state governors in the USA rejecting the portion of the stimulus package that provides additional unemployment benefits to the states for distribution to the unemployed.  These same governors are still accepting all other funds provided them and their states in the federal stimulus package, which, by the way is now a law.  It seems these governors may be looking at a GOP presidential run in 2012, and this is their “statement” against the stimulus package.  You can, and should, read more about this HERE.

Giving credit where it’s due, Jindal started out fine with acknowledgement of President Obama’s achievement of becoming the first African-American president of the USA.  Jidal himself is India-American and thus has appreciation for this type of feat.

But from that point, Jindal descended into some kind of rambling diatribe seemingly intended for fourth graders.  At times Jindal seemed to say that almost everything the democrats are doing is wrong, but then proposed similar solutions to those passed by the democrats.  One example of this is where Jindal stated,

“To strengthen our economy, we also need to address the crisis in health care. Republicans believe in a simple principle: No American should have to worry about losing their health care coverage, period. We stand for universal access to affordable health care coverage.”

Gee.  Isn’t that the blueprint for President’s plan to reform health care?

Jindal went on to say, “What we oppose is universal government-run health care. Health care decisions should be made by doctors and patients, not by government bureaucrats.”

No one on the democratic side of the issue has EVER advocated that bureaucrats should be making health care decisions.  in fact, the truth is that this bureaucratic interference with doctor-patient medical decisions is exactly what happens today with the for-profit private health insurance system that the GOP so dearly protects.  You can read Jindal’s entire speech for yourself HERE.

Although many who watch the speech thought of Jindal’s speech as infantile and filled with inaccuracies, We the PEOPLE!! believes that he was simply staking out his claim to the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.  This view is reinforced by the numerous conservative web sites advocating Jindal for that very position.  Google “Jindal president 2012” if you want to check these out.

What’s lost on Jindal and the rest of the GOP is that for the first time in history, the average citizen can actually participate in getting real time information about government programs such as the stimulus package online at web sites such as Recovery.gov.  As more and more Americans become computer literate, more are finding out how to get to the truth about issues that affect them.  And more and more, Americans are going to become more proactive about the information and misinformation thrown at them.

By the way:  Recovery.gov was President Obama’s idea.  It’s just another example of the difference between the current administration and what preceded it.  It’s also an example of the difference between what is and what would have been if the GOP had won the presidential election,  since John McCain admitted he didn’t use a computer.

Amazing what a brilliant, eloquent, highly educated, tech-savvy leader can do, huh? 

In the meantime, be glad you’re not unemployed in one of the five GOP-run states that are refusing the additional unemployment benefits included in the stimulus package.  Put another way, if you lost your job, at least be happy Jindal is not your governor

They say nothing succeeds like success.  But if you don’t want success, you hope for failure.

That’s exactly what every republican in the US House of Representatives, and all but three GOP senators have done by voting against the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, more commonly known as the stimulus package.

By doing so, in light of the fact that an increasing majority of the American people approve of this law, they have put party ideology above real economic help for millions of people.  And in order salvage any credibility, they are hoping, as Rush Limbaugh announced for the entire world to hear, for failure.  That failure could only be measured in misery for millions of Americans who would lose their employment, health coverage, houses, savings, retirement funds, childrens’ college funds and every part of the American dream.

Even if these GOP congressionals were right in predicting that this law will do nothing, or nearly nothing to stimulate the economy by saving and creating jobs in worthwhile pursuits such as fixing badly neglected infrastructure and developing new beneficial industries such as real alternate energy sources, they stand to be seen as part of the failure, since they could not find their way clear to offer a credible alternative that would appeal to the majority of congress and the American public.  In a failure, they will be seen as the “3D’s”, or deny, delay, do nothing.

But they’re wrong, and they have already lost the support of their own republican governors.  These selfsame governors are being crushed in their own states under state budget deficits caused by a drop in revenue due to the failing economy.  And remember that state governments cannot deficit spend like the federal government can.

These republican governors absolutely DO support the stimulus package because it is going to save their political asses from having to take such career-ending actions as not paying state tax refunds, laying off state employees and reducing or eliminating crucial state services.  It would have been cool to be a fly on the wall as these governors were calling their congresspeople and senators to tell them how badly their state needs that money immediately, and hearing the congressperson/senator tell the governor that making the democrats look bad was more important than saving jobs and services, and ultimately, the economy from a longer recession.

Yet, the stimulus package is not going to fail.  Far from it, it is guaranteed to be successful right from the get-go precisely because it is immediately going to prevent the lay-offs of hundreds of thousands of state workers and hundreds of thousands of other employees and contractors during all manner of public works for the states.  State tax refunds will get paid to residents and ultimately end up in the economy.

This is perhaps the biggest miscalculation on the GOP’s part:  The stimulus package will be successful almost immediately with working voters.  They are already aware that the recession started in December 2007 , according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, just four short years after the last Bush tax cuts in 2003, which were supposed to ensure years of economic prosperity.  They are also aware that it was the GOP that went along with every massive spending bill the Bush administration wanted, which doubled the budget deficit over the past two years as well as national debt over the past eight years.  For them to now claim “fiscal responsibility” in opposing a stimulus package primarily because it was proposed by the democrats defies credibility, and the American people know it.

That’s going to be a HUGE problem for every member of the GOP in the House of Representative, each of which is up for re-election in a mere eighteen months during the next mid-term elections.  It is also a problem for potentially a third of GOP senators, who also face re-election during the same mid-term elections.  The democrats only need to pick up two seats in the US Senate to achieve the filibuster-proof 60% “super-majority” that essentially locks out the GOP completely in both house of congress.

What’s more is that they might do even more harm to themselves with two upcoming issues:  The forthcoming foreclosure relief bill and the possibility of temporarily nationalizing the banks in the USA to stop the hemorrhaging of money from the economic system, as proposed yesterday by conservative expert economist, Alan Greenspan.  The GOP congressionals are going to hate that!  If their performance on the stimulus package is any indication, they will oppose both of these initiatives.

So the GOP congressionals and the GOP leadership are playing a very dangerous game.  They have to hope that the stimulus package fails, that if the banks get nationalized, that fails, and the foreclosure relief package also fails.  Then they have to hope that all of the now-penniless, homeless and jobless folks that the recession caused (because the packages didn’t work) will lose their memory of the previous GOP spending, and then blindly see the deny, delay, do-nothing GOP as their saviors.  The GOP has to hope these all of these folks will vote for them.

A note to the GOP:  As Dirty Harry was fond of saying….”feeling lucky?”