2016 and the Annoying Liberal Conscience

The 2016 buzz has begun and already we are seeing polling numbers and commentary on a potential run at the presidency by Hillary Clinton on the Left and Jeb Bush or other prominent conservatives on the Right. The comments underneath all of the liberal articles are teeming with posts begging for a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren ticket. This troubles me as a liberal because, although I know liberals tend to vote with a conscience, that conscience is a double edged sword that will come back to bite us like it has in the past.

Let me explain.

First, I should frame my viewpoint in terms of the analogous conservative equivalent. Hey, liberals. What do we tell Republicans about voting in hard core representatives from their conservative base? Yeah. You know what we say. Don't act like you don't. We tell them that Tea Party candidates are dangerous and not in line with main stream America. We tell them that extremist ideas are not good.

Well, isn't that the same thing Bernie Sanders ends up being? He's an extreme Lefty. He's our Ted Cruz. What chance does Ted Cruz have in a general election? What good does a Ted Cruz do for our country? Conservatives suck on his teat like no other just as liberals love a good Bernie Sanders appearance on TV, but the broader picture can't survive a Ted Cruz, so by the same token, Bernie Sanders is better left to fight our battles in Congress, not in the White House.

But your liberal conscience wants to argue with me over that just like Tea Party nuts want to argue with me over wanting Rand Paul to rise up and run. End the Fed. All that jazz. The same conservative conscience that turns its nose up at us wants a Rand Paul candidacy just like we want a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren candidacy. That's why primaries are so messy. Every candidate has to play to the base in primaries and the broader picture in the general election. Jeb Bush knows this. Hillary knows this. Sanders doesn't care. Paul doesn't care. Cruz doesn't care. Warren might care. I'm not sure.

What I do know is this. Clamoring for a Warren or Sanders ticket is primary talk, not general election talk.

But your liberal conscience can't take a Hillary for President ticket, can it? That's the next part of our conscience that screws us over. You would sooner stay home and not vote than vote for Hillary Clinton. You would rather sound all smarty smart with George Carlin quotes than use History to make the case that not voting is a bad idea. Look at the 2014 mid-terms. Look where not voting got us. Turn out always favors Republicans and the liberal conscience prevents us from gaining any ground during those elections because we have principles or something that sounds warm and fuzzy like that.

And your liberal conscience also splits the vote like with Nader and Gore. What happened there? Thanks, liberal conscience.

Listen up. We need a moderate liberal voice in the White House and a liberal conscience in the House and Senate. Why? Legislation is written in Congress. The power of the pen rides on the back of Congressional legislation. If we send Bernie and Elizabeth to Congress, they'll push bills that Hillary will sign. If we push our conscience into the presidential election, we'll get a Republican who won't go along with anything Bernie or Elizabeth sign off on.

I've seen liberal media lately talk up this idea of riling up the liberal base by standing up for liberal ideas and whatnot. That's all fine and good, but if we don't get exactly what you want, does that mean the fire has to be doused with your apathy? When you back out, you give the Republicans Congress and the White House. I don't mind Hillary. She's not a Landrieu who won't represent a liberal like me in Louisiana. Hillary is going to follow our lead if we send her the message we want in Congress. She answers to us through bills we get our representatives to push. We have seen this with Obama, haven't we? If we want something, we have to fight for it, even if the president in office isn't our ideal liberal. If we send Obama a clean liberal bill without Republican obstructionism in the way, we'll get what we want.

If you'd rather Nader us again or put us through another shellacking, go ahead and convince yourself the liberal conscience is a hard line we must toe. You're no different than a Teabagger if you believe that. The pendulum cannot afford to swing back that far Left after the troubles Obama has faced. If we didn't have such strong conservative negative advertising against us like talk of tax hikes, scary fake Socialism claims, or threats of driving up the debt, I'd say go ahead and stick to your guns. That's not the way American voters work under normal circumstances because they're dumb. Don't stay home. Don't turn your nose up. Solidarity is our ticket. The rest can be adjusted via Congress.

What if there's a tie?

In past presidential elections, I do not recall so much emphasis being placed on the possibility of a tie in the Electoral College on election day. Over the past two weeks, it seems as if that's what 75% of news sources mention, in passing or directly. I'm beginning to wonder why.

If I go to Gallup or 270towin and read their front page, in a matter of seconds, I'm going to come across talk of a tie. Should there be a tie, the reality is, the House picks the winner. Right now, the House is controlled by Republicans. That means Romney wins.

So do these people know something we don't? According to 270towin, there are 32 combinations in which a tie might occur as of today with about eleven states up in the air.

It's almost as if they are giving us a preview for the news coverage we will receive on election night and the morning following the election. It's almost as if the election is going to be rigged and then stolen. Imagine the hubbub should the House pick Romney. It will be no different than the events which transpired in 2000 when George W. Bush was handed the big win by the Supreme Court. The people didn't make this decision. The Electoral College didn't even make that decision. It went to the Supreme Court. In this year's scenario, it would be left up to the House, not the people.

It would further discredit the validity of the Electoral College and invigorate the push for our elections to rely solely upon the popular vote instead. I don't know about you, but I don't like the way the tie scenario is being fed to us. It's very suspicious that this possible outcome is so common a topic this year.

I mean, according to 270towin, Obama has a 74% chance of getting to 270 and Romney only has a 24% shot at the same goal. Why, then, does it even come to mind that the election would end in a tie?

Is this just media hype? Imagine the division in this country should the House be given the choice. Imagine just how much finger pointing and complaining we will have to endure over the next four years. Imagine all the doubt and distrust something like this would create.

A tie? That'd put us in some deep doo doo. Let's hope there is a clear winner on election night. I do not want to put up with a partisan decision. I would rather see the Electoral College play out as intended.

The Two Biggest Problems With Clint Eastwood's Speech

While the internet is still buzzing from the hilarity that was Clint Eastwood's rambling on the RNC stage at the convention, two things stood out in my mind as I watched the coverage and replay of the poorly timed and poorly placed attempt at Republican enthusiasm. While I agree with Bill Maher that producing comedy with an empty chair is a difficult task and that Eastwood pulled that part off, I did not find the act itself to be of the quality or decency that we should expect in a campaign.

Let me explain what I mean.

Al Sharpton has already brought my first point to our attention, as have many others. The speech itself was disrespectful to the office of the President of the United States of America. Now before you get your conservative panties and secret mormon underwear in knots, let's cover one very important retort that I've seen. Yes, democrats have been known to say and do some very unkind things when talking about President Bush. This behavior, however, does not excuse you or Clint Eastwood from behaving the same way. You should strive to be a better person than your rivals, no?

Okay, then. So the fact that Clint Eastwood not only spoke in a condescending tone to an imaginary President Obama, but adding profanity to the mix made this performance especially disrespectful.  Had President Obama been in that chair, Clint Eastwood would have conducted himself in a more respectful tone.

This leads to my second impression of this crap.

This is the only way conservatives like to debate President Obama. Not only have they spent the last four years (election season and post-election first term) creating a fake story line about President Obama with which they have armed their dittohead minions for the sole purpose of making him a one term president, but in this instance, they created a situation where a debate without a retort from their opposition served only to fit their hate-laden fancy. They could argue with an invisible man from the comfort of their own echo chamber. Difference of opinion? What's that? It's what Republicans refuse to acknowledge in the name of arrogance and self preservation. This was hardly a respectable way to frame the campaign, let alone a debate. In that setting, no humor exists. It's a shameful representation of what the Republican Party has become.

Conservatives do not wish to debate the President on his home turf. No. This was an act of blatant cowardice. If they can't muster up the courage to debate President Obama face to face, then that makes them cowards. That makes Clint Eastwood a coward. To pull a line from Back to the Future III, Clint Eastwood is the biggest yellow belly in the West.

When in history has either party talked this way to a sitting US president? Oh yes, this might have to do with the fact that modern conservatives question the legitimacy of this presidency, from birthers, to people who think he is Muslim, to racists, and to people who think he stole the election. This kind of disrespectful behavior is rooted in the foul mentality that is the hatred modern Republicans have for President Obama. It's disgusting. We're Americans for crying out loud. Act like it.

That is all.

How Voter Purging and Papers Please are Linked: Republican Delusions

One of the things about journalism in the US that gets me going is how pundits respond to anything the Republican or Democratic parties do or say. When the news covers a story, it is often framed in such a way that makes an action or phrase sound so preposterous that the party in question has done something outrageous and unheard of. The fact of the matter is, whether you're listening to Fox News or MSNBC, the facts were twisted to cater to an audience who would naturally become suckered into believing something so outrageous when it is nothing of the sort, sort of.

Let me use the recent coverage of voter purging in Florida and the Arizona Papers Please ruling to illustrate the problem. I'll first describe the pitch (the delivery) and then I'll follow through with the explanation the news completely missed.

Voter Purging

The Pitch:
First, in the voter purging situation, the "goal" at first glance was to weed out fraudulent voting. Judging by the citizens who were purged, it was clear all the wrong people were getting caught up in the mess.

The Explanation:
Behind all of that, Republicans feel justified in purging these voters who largely vote for Democrats. Why? Republicans feel that they are the victims here. They claim to be the victims of a liberal conspiracy to allow illegal immigrants the ability to vote in order to steal the election away from them. In their minds, illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly corrupting the voting process to the point where Republican candidates lose. They feel as though purging the voter rolls will result in a course correction. This is why a Republican audience applauds Mike Turzai in Pennsylvania for saying a voter purge will lead to a Romney victory. Liberals foolishly respond, pointing out how Turzai's comments were an admission of rigging an election.

On the contrary, the Republican delusion is such that they don't see it as rigging the election, but adjusting the situation away from an incorrect belief that the election was rigged to favor Democrats. It's wrong, but it is their delusion. Liberals are left mouths agape for the wrong reason. Liberals need to begin framing unscrupulous behavior in terms of the Republican delusion and not the reasonable assertion from outside the Republican bubble.

Papers Please

The Pitch:
The Papers Please part of the Arizona law that was recently upheld by the Supreme Court has been perceived as a form of racial profiling whereby innocent Hispanic-American citizens would be stopped and accused of being an illegal immigrant just because they are hispanic.

The Explanation:
What you need to understand is, the same sort of Republican delusion exists here, too. You see, Republicans in Arizona and elsewhere believe that illegal immigrants are Democratic strongholds threatening the American way of life and unfairly victimizing (white) American citizens by taking jobs, leeching off government programs, and committing crimes. The Papers Please part of the law, to them, was not an attempt to profile at face value, but it represents Republicans who already profile all Mexican-Americans as illegals. To them, a person of color is not a legitimate American. To them, a person of color is a pawn of the liberal conspiracy against the Republican voter and of America itself.

The Conclusion:
So if you understand the delusion, then you can report on the story better. It will sound as though you are being flagrant and mean to your opposition, but it's the truth. If you admit Republicans are delusional and see the delusion for what it is, you can correctly assess their behavior. Then, you can call them on it. Anything less is feeding into the same stalemate we have come to know.

The same sort of mentality applies to their opinions toward unions and welfare. To them, Democrats are crooked SOBs. To them, a union equates to thugs. To the, welfare equates to lazy leeches. Pick a good system and they will demonize it, claiming victimization.



It's why Romney's "Sauce for the gander" comment resonated. To the, Democrats are unsavory and conspiring against them, so it's only fair to conspire right back. It's disgusting.

Will Ron Paul Split The Vote?

In modern politics right now, the more liberal media outlets are focusing most, if not all of their attention on the Republican primaries. The respective pundits hit all the high points, the Newt vs Mitt phenomenon, the Mitt vs Mitt phenomenon, and even the icky colorful Santorum Surge. These same media outlets have also mentioned that Ron Paul has largely been left out of the mainstream discussion, in part because he is not seen as a viable candidate. Yes, folks, MSNBC does cover Ron Paul, despite what your conservative friends have said.

But the coverage for Ron Paul has dropped off over the past few weeks because the primary results, while initially very strong for Paul, dwindled in comparison to the changes in the numbers for other candidates. Still, you know Paul has a strong backing by his supporters. You'll know them as the internet forumites who end their rants with "Ron Paul 2012." Sometimes they include an exclamation point. Sometimes, not.

So the support is there, right? He has a following. His supporters do not constitute a small group of people. In fact, they are quite large and in addition to that, they are extremely vocal, especially on the internet. Even one of my friends on Facebook supports old man Paul and scoffed at the notion of my perception of him as a crackpot. Sadly, he and I are no longer friends, but I can guarantee you this. Come election time, my former friend will most certainly still support Ron Paul.

With the primaries in full swing, it seems Paul has garnered more than a few delegates. When it comes time to pick a Republican nominee, what will Paul do with his amassed delegates? Will he run as an Independent? Will he run at all? Again, Ron Paul has been lost in terms of being on the media's mind, whether on Fox News or elsewhere. The voice of the Republican establishment knows Paul is a threat to them...but very few are actually asking the more important question. Will Ron Paul's presence in the 2012 Presidential election affect the outcome? Will he be to the eventual nominee what Ralph Nader was to Al Gore? Will he split the vote?

As I've already discussed, Paul supporters have lots of energy. Sadly, though, there is another group of Ron Paul supporters who pose a threat, but not to the Republican nominee. No. They pose a threat to Barack Obama. They are the liberals who want pot legalized. A woman I dated in Arkansas was one of these confused liberals. If any liberal actually goes through Ron Paul's voting record, they'll come to realize he is not very liberal at all and he would do away with many of the things these pothead liberals support. The thing is, they are angry about marijuana and they are also angry about the wars we have been fighting. Anger apparently leads to confusion, but the anger is strong enough for these liberal voters to cast their vote for Ron Paul. It isn't even a protest vote, a vote of no confidence in Barack Obama. It is a self-legitimized vote of support rooted in only a few issues, disregarding the rest of what Ron Paul stands for. These voters will split the Democratic vote, but by how much? I'm not sure I have the answer to that, but they could be a threat as well.

I'm not sure the numbers are there on the Left to negate the Paul supporters on the Right, refuting the notion that Paul supporters are negligible in the grand scheme of things. They will most certainly have an impact on the 2012 election, but because they are largely libertarian conservatives, Paul will eat into the support for the Republican nominee more than Barack Obama. Perhaps a vote for Ron Paul ends up being a vote for Barack Obama. I don't see Ron Paul supporters as rank and file conservatives, people who will vote for anyone with an (R) next to their name, justified in the sentiment that any Republican is better than any damn Democrat.

After Labor Day

President Obama has recently been criticized for saying he has a plan to create jobs, but that he will reveal it after Labor Day. People want to hear the plan right now. People are asking why he has to wait until after Labor Day to reveal this plan.

Let me tell you why, peons.

Congress comes back from their little vacation after Labor Day. They're on break. Obama isn't. His trip is not a vacation. It's in his job description.

Judging by the words and phrases in his speech, I'd say that his plan has to do with infrastructure and construction jobs, in addition to payroll tax cuts. Anyone who has actually listened to him speak over the past few days should have that understanding, too. If you're not a listener, there's a good chance you are still asking what the plan is. If you're not paying attention, you might miss all the Republicans saying No to these proposals.

But it doesn't stop there. What is the point in announcing the plan now? Congress has to approve it. That's how our government works. If you don't understand that, go back to grade school. The House and Senate need to fine tune whatever proposal President Obama has regarding jobs. Obama doesn't make the modifications to a plan and send it out to the masses. Our government relies on Congress to do all of that. Then it goes out to the masses.

If President Obama tells you exactly what his plan is, what are the odds Congress will change it before all is said and done? I'd say, given the way the Republicans handled the HCR debate, the chances are pretty good Obama's jobs plan will not look exactly how he envisioned it. In other words, telling you the specifics now is useless. The details will change. I mean, Republicans are already saying No. Do they stand up in front of us and say they have a plan? No.

Maybe John Boehner should drop his plan in the mail. Let me know when it arrives on your doorstep, fellow citizen.

I'm just calling it like I see it, folks. That's how our government works. If you want to yell and complain, aim those screams at Congress. They're on vacation right now. If you want something done before Labor Day, Congress has to get its ass in gear. Tell President Obama you want members of Congress back on the job right now.

The Childish Behavior Extends Beyond Congress

One of the things that is bothering me right now about the debt ceiling debate is not that we are at an impasse at the level of the Federal Government, but that we are regularly at odds across America. Right now, every news outlet is playing up the idea that Obama and Boehner are behaving like children. They even bring in reasonably sounding Americans to chastise the bickering. At face value, it looks as though the problem is with government. Americans recognize that the rest of the world is looking at us and shaking their heads.

But that's not entirely true. Reasonable Americans are not commenting about this stuff in forums. They aren't talking about this reasonably on Facebook. They can't bring it up on Craigslist without being flagged. The ideology is a systemic problem at the voter level. As I've said before, the inability to compromise is not a symptom of government, but a result of our own inabilities to compromise. The American people are turned against each other right now.

I don't think I can name one conservative leaning person last night who didn't piss and moan about Obama blaming Bush so early in his speech. Their heads exploded all over the internet with blame that was deserved.

I don't think I saw one conservative on the internet say we should raise the debt ceiling.

I saw many throwing out the talking point that the rich pay most of the tax revenue in this country.

I mean, people...come on. You're regurgitating the same thing over and over again. The problem isn't Boehner. The problem isn't Obama.

It's us.

We cannot come together to compromise. I cannot have a conversation with a conservative anymore. It goes nowhere. It's the same argument day in and day out. It always ends in the same place. All the same things keep being said. It's almost like clockwork. We are at an impasse at the national level because we refuse to compromise at the local level.

Blame yourselves. It's our fault. We're the children. There are no more compromising conservatives anymore. That's what needs to be fixed.

51 to 38 and how these polls don't matter

For those of you paying close attention to the Republican presidential candidate field, the polls regarding who will be the best possible option in 2012 might be grabbing your attention. The polls tend to imply that, although front-runners exist on the Right, when put up against President Obama, none of them have a snowball's chance in Hell. The competitive nature of these elections feeds the media monster and the ultimate goal is not to report news, but generate drama to boost ratings.

What our journalists aren't considering at this point is the Electoral College. They may be talking about individual state elections, but those are primaries and the implications regarding primaries can be derived to suit any viewpoint about the general election in 2012.

While Mitt Romney may lag behind Barack Obama in what, to me, is nothing more than the popular vote, anyone who was an Al Gore supporter knows just how meaningless the popular vote can be. What we should be talking about is how voter fraud and manipulative positioning will be an issue on a state by state basis. Individual politicized initiatives always get placed on the ballot in different states to improve voter turnout in favor of one party in particular. The popular vote doesn't tell me anything. I want to see the Electoral College map for each Republican candidate who could go up against Barack Obama. Is that too much to ask?

I know. It's early. I just feel like watching any news on the 2012 race at this point is meaningless without considering the E.C.

Republicans position themselves to deny me the right to vote for Barack Obama

At this very moment, two Representatives in Louisiana are proposing a bill similar to what has been passed in Arizona pertaining to birth certificates and elections. In doing this, they create a situation where, if the officials cannot accept the documentation submitted to them by President Barack Obama, there is a good chance Louisiana will not let him on the ballot....And I will be unable to vote. Barack Obama has already shown a valid birth certificate, yet the crazy people aren't at all satisfied.

This is the new America envisioned by the Conservative gestapo. Birthers have taken over the Right Wing. Their paranoid delusions stretch so far that even Governor Bobby Jindal has said he will sign this bill should it make its way through Louisiana's legislative branch. Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer vetoed the Arizona bill today. I hope Jindal realizes this will kill any national hopes he has for running for anything.

Where will this end? Who on the Conservative side will stand up to these nuts? When will Birthers lose their grip on the Republican Party?

Do we live in an era where my right to vote for the candidate I choose is denied because crazy people coerce our local elected officials?

Is this the new way to steal an election?

This is another sad day for America. Racism has reared its ugly head and none of us are doing anything about it. None of our leaders condemn it.

Louisiana residents should be ashamed. Republicans should be ashamed. Donald Trump should especially be ashamed for fanning the flame of hate.

Damn you for attempting to take away my ability to vote in the State of Louisiana. Damn you all.

Have we already lost?

The recent turn of events over the last few years has shown me as a voter that corporations control not only the politicians in DC, but our politicians at the local level.

When chunks come out of an airplane in the sky...
When oil spills devastate our shores...
When food contamination poisons our loved ones...
When fast food restaurants skimp on meat and replace it with filler to save money...

We must admit our problem is not with government, but with aging infrastructure that is run by businesses who refuse to change. Regulation has had its head cut off. We don't have the teeth to bite back. Companies hang their hats on risk management. They hire people to assess cost versus benefit risks and those rare events where bad things happen get shoved to the bottom of the list as a result. They hedge their bets at the expense of us, the American citizen.

We don't really have a choice. We live at the whim of corporate budgets. The effects of our complacency are nothing short of detrimental.

I'm not asking if we've lost the 2012 election to the Republicans. I am asking if we've lost the class struggle altogether. Are we already knee deep in Fascism? Are the economic powerhouses in this country in control of everything?

Whether or not Barack Obama will be re-elected will not be determined by a "referendum" on his performance. It will be a testament to the corporate influence the major players behind the scenes have over our election process. As the 2012 campaigns begin to enter our minds in the weeks to come, the misinformation will flood in, the hate we experienced in 2008 will resurface, and we as citizens will be turned against each other. The power at the top will stand over us, look down, and laugh.

You may be disappointed in our political system. You may be disappointed with Barack Obama. What I won't do is stand here and tell you that voting for a Republican will make things any better. At the beginning of 2011, the Republicans set the stage for their 2012 campaign. They are at war with the Middle Class, from union workers to Social Security recipients to our teachers, police, and firemen. Jobs were not on their list of priorities. They chose party over country again and if you are Republican, you should be troubled by this move, not enthusiastic about it. While you may be at war with Liberals and secularism, you need to wake up and realize that you are being attacked by something else, corporate greed. The urgency with which we must launch our counter-attack has never been clearer, so while you may dislike the idea of a second term for Barack Obama, what you do not want is your current spread of Conservative candidates to take a swing at the presidency. In 2016, you can vote for either party again, but a Republican win would send a message to the corporate world that it is open season on the rest of us.

Your choice is between Barack Obama and a Republican powerhouse cramming their flavor of Big Government down our throats (the fast track to Fascism). Any Conservative who tells you they are out to shrink the size of government is lying. On social issues, they want to dictate what we do. On safety issues, they want to dictate what it is we cannot have. On income, they have no desire to help any of us get a job. The past two years have been about power. The Republican Party is now about control. There is no incentive for them to side with the people. They are in this to crush the Democratic Party into oblivion.

So if you are a Republican voter who believes in democracy and the electoral process, do you want to live in a country where you don't have any rivals? Do you really want to live where your beliefs go unopposed? Do you believe in the balance of power?

This is where I wonder if we as Liberals have already lost. Over the past few years, I have been tossing the following idea around in my brain. Is America really more conservative than liberal? Are Liberals simply outnumbered? Are we dead in the putrid water? Do we survive only at the whim of ignorance, bigoted, and the misinformed?

When you look at who is funding Republicans and Democrats in recent elections, you might get the sense that we as Liberals are almost powerless. The only groups throwing big money behind are candidates appear to be unions. The rest? The big bucks come from big companies and the most of the money goes to Republicans.


When Republicans began chipping away at unions in recent months, the message being sent is that they are not attacking unions. They are attacking the Democratic Party. After all, isn't that what a modern day Republican is? Isn't that what defines modern Conservatism? The one thing they all have in common on that side of the political fence is an overt hatred of anything Left of Center.

"Imagine a world without Liberals."

That is the current under-the-table slogan for the Republican Party.

So have we already lost? Is the America where two political parties exist simply gone? The current climate is full of voters who feel neither Democrats nor Republicans are any good. In fact, many voters feel there is no real difference at all. I urge you to look at the attacks taking place on the financial viability of Liberal politics and ask yourself if there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans through those glasses. I say there is.

A recent poll published by NBC News found that the majority of Republicans want their elected officials to stand firm at the risk of a government shut down. Democrats almost overwhelmingly when asked the same question sided with compromise. Independent voters overwhelmingly sided with compromise when asked about both Republicans and Democrats.

Who is the real threat here? Stalwarts or Hopefuls?

If you don't vote, but can...
If you won't vote, but could...
If you swing vote, and see...

Send a message in 2012 that the current incarnation of the Republican Party is not welcome in this climate. Bring us back into focus as a nation. Vote in protest against this machine, even if your politics align you to the Right, fiscally. I welcome Libertarians into my ranks, but I turn my nose at the Social Conservatives that are running us into the ground.

When, in the same NBC News poll, people were asked if this country is on the right track, most said No. Which track are they looking at? It depends on which train you're on. If you sit on the Left, you see a political system in disarray, torn apart by a Right Wing lunatic fringe. If you sit on the Right, you see Barack Obama, Democrats, and Liberalism as a plague.

When posed like that, we have all lost, and once again, I am ashamed to be an American.

Maddow misses the mark

There is one thing that bothers me more than anything else about the more Liberal media outlets, namely MSNBC. While I admit the coverage and explanations are usually spot on and come from valid sources, the overall point has no relevance to the modern day Liberal. The often cynical news segment highlights the opposition and does not address our own goals or ambitions as Liberals.

In a recent episode of the RMS, Maddow correctly highlighted how Democratic officials have caught on to the hypocrisy of big government rhetoric among Conservative politicians.

I should probably explain this first.

Government involvement in our lives is something Conservative politicians use to rile up their base against their competition and although "big government" is a boogie man that only exists as a device for advancing one's own career, the socially conservative side of their base wants nothing more than government to interfere in our lives. This occurs in matters with religious undertones, namely gay marriage and abortion, but the fact remains. If the government tells us what we can and cannot do in our own homes, it certainly does not look like small government.

That was a valid point to make. Nothing wrong with it.

But you're not talking to those hypocrites. You're talking to us. I'm glad Maddow reported on it the way she did, but as a Liberal who wants to see more ballsy attitudes from elected Democrats, such dialogue does nothing to tell me where we are headed as a party. Sure, our elected officials are catching on to the hypocrisy, but as a campaign ad against an opponent, it has very little bang for the buck. Voters on that side of the fence are still going to swing to the Right, citing the lesser of two evils defense.

In other words, this is not a credible attack plan. It only feeds the desire to run negative campaign ads. What voters *should* want are politicians who will tell us what they will do for us. They *should* want to hear a plan.

So while Maddow pegged conservatives for hypocrisy, in my eyes, it has no substantive merit.

We should focus on taking patriotism back. We should focus on our economic principles and fight the resistance set on crippling our legislation to the point where it becomes an ineffectual stack of paper. We should tout our accomplishments up to this point because our opponents continually tell their base we are doing nothing at all.

Stop Calling Independents "Moderate"

Moments ago, David Gregory on Meet The Press asked a question of the panel, reflecting back on the 2010 midterm election. He phrased it in terms of the moderate voter moving away from President Obama and more to the Right. There's just one thing wrong with that comment. Referring to Independents as Moderates is no longer a legitimate perspective. The political spectrum has changed and our media talking heads have yet to make the adjustment.

I wrote a post about this a long time ago, yet no one seems to be catching on.
See A New Trend: Being an "Independent" Voter

Visit any Conservative web site where a forum is in place. Ask the Conservatives if they identify themselves as Republicans or Conservatives. Ask them!!!

Their answer will be the following.

They no longer associate themselves with the Republican party. They are Independents. THAT'S RIGHT. Those Conservatives are now calling themselves Independents. Conservatives who do not align themselves with the Republican party are not moderate Conservatives. They are fringe Conservatives. They believe in far Right policies. They will never support a Democratic agenda, let alone a moderate agenda. When news organizations conduct their polls and end the questionnaire by asking if participants identify themselves as a Democrat, a Republican, or an Independent, do you see now how these polls can suddenly make it seem as though the general public is against what Barack Obama and the Democrats are doing? The terminology needs to change. An Independent and a Moderate voter are not one and the same.

Leading up to the 2008 presidential election, we saw this trend. After Barack Obama won, we continued to see this split on the Conservative side of the fence. Our news outlets have not fully recognized the trend. They are asleep at the wheel. This sort of trend has existed on the Left for some time now. Only until recently has the "Independent" voice on the Right gained any traction.

So...will someone in the media shake some screws loose and stop referring to Independents as people who vote from the middle? It's misleading. Even top Conservatives in Washington, from Mitch McConnell to John Boehner have used this "statistic" to spin politics in their favor, claiming middle America is on their side when in fact, this is not the case.

Nancy Pelosi Isn't Gone, Folks...

Visit any negative Nancy Pelosi fan page on Facebook that has anything to do with getting rid of her and you will soon notice one trend. People seem to think that because she will no longer be the Speaker of the House, she will be leaving. It just goes to show you, Americans do not understand our political system. Apparently this includes how Congress operates.

Nancy Pelosi is still the congresswoman from California, representing the 8th district. So she's not fired. She's not leaving Congress. She will still be very active in the legislative process. In the 2010 election, she was up against Libertarian, John Dennis. She won with an 80% majority and will be serving her 12th consecutive term in Congress. Until January, Pelosi will still be House Speaker. She's not gone, folks.

Once again, conservatives have shown me they willingly choose to disregard reality and vocalize their skewed perceptions, complete with hatred and vitriol. Don't believe me? Stop on by some of the anti-Pelosi Facebook pages. Quite a few "fans" want her dead. If you're looking for examples of how conservatives spew hate and death threats, Facebook is the best place to gather evidence.

http://pelosi.house.gov/

My vote. A decision to make. What is it worth?

Our current voting system is flawed, driven by negativity through attack ads and falsely guarded under the pretense that campaigns are geared towards tackling the issues we care about. Once elected, the person who goes to DC faces the same bribery and underhandedness that the rest have who came before them fell prey to. Lobbyists control their campaign, and in turn, their vote. My vote becomes meaningless. The sad truth is still that I helped put them there.

I have said this before in previous posts, but our elected officials are a reflection of ourselves. American voters are at each other's throats. We are unable to agree on anything. We elect men and women who are extensions of that disagreement. Government can't get anything done because we cannot agree on what should be done. If I want progress, I have to seriously consider how I vote.

Which leads me to my conundrum, and perhaps your own.

I want to vote my conscience. I want to vote for what I believe in. I want to vote based on someone's record. I want to vote for someone I can defend, someone I can stand behind. Instead, I'm being convinced that I must vote against all of that and support the lesser of two evils. If I vote my conscience, I might be able to sleep at night, but the person I vote for will not win. If I vote for the lesser of two evils, I may not like them, but they have a shot at winning and some of what I want might get through Congress. By voting for the lesser of two evils, my wants and needs as a US citizen have a chance. Ironic, isn't it?

But the opposite side votes the same way now. Take David Vitter, for example. He's running against Charlie Melancon who is admittedly a conservative democrat. Republicans and "independent" conservatives will be voting for David Vitter despite his afflictions and very public penchant for prostitutes. Family values are important to those voters, but Vitter is not expected to walk the walk. Why? He is a reflection of the conservative voter. His constituents don't have family values either. They behave in ways which favor selfish interests too. They may not be chasing after hookers, but their values are most certainly compromised. They would never be caught dead voting for "some damn democrat." As far as they are concerned, Melancon is a socialist, despite the fact that he's obviously a conservative democrat. In terms of the political spectrum, he's light years away from being a leftist. Still, conservative voters play the lesser of two evils game too, even when their candidate is an outright scumbag. Apparently Melancon is worse that a john.

The people voting for David Vitter are casting what I call a pseudo-protest vote. They are voting for Vitter to protest Obama, but all the griping going on in this country about incumbents, crooked politicians, and and reforming DC politics becomes meaningless by voting for David Vitter. We do not send a message to the corrupt that we want them out. We continue to put them back in because they will supposedly vote at some point in time in line with our belief system. We vote for the chance, not the reality.

If I do not vote for Melancon, those who vote for Vitter give their side a lead. If I do vote for Melancon, there is a chance he could win. But is my vote worth a sacrifice? Do I break principles and go for the win? Do I play that game? What does that say about me?

I do not like this feeling one bit. I would much rather take a stand against the status quo of conservative Louisiana. I have the gumption to cast a protest vote. Practically, it amounts to nothing in the long run. What would you do?

I would prefer to cast a vote of no confidence. I think that is a sentiment those of us on the Left and Right can sympathize with.

Cash is King - The Paladino Trend

I don't know a whole hell of a lot about New York politics, but I probably know just as much as you do about the race for governor in New York thanks to very basic news coverage. What has me perplexed is how anger has supported a character which represents the same corrupt structure they are angry with. Voters are specifically angry with lobbying special interests, greedy politicians, and money grubbing dirtbags.

Well, Paladino is a rich dirtbag.

Why support him? I know you're angry, but why pick that guy? Pick someone better.

I am seeing this across the country at all levels of government. People are angry with the elected officials who presently hold office, but the challengers are all spread out among wackjobs, well financed campaigns, and less than kosher souls even Bernie Madoff could win against in a popularity poll. That isn't going to result in change. I don't see how it could. Replace one dirtbag with another dirtbag? You've got to be kidding.

People demand common sense politicians. Where is our common sense? Where is the real outrage? What I am seeing is a bandwagon that rides on anger, but is fed by money. You're a Tea Party candidate, yet you're not an every day man or woman. You aren't an every day American. You're either someone who upholds fringe beliefs, works the system, or makes a hell of a lot of money in the process.

So where are the noble challengers? If you're tired of spending and corruption, don't replace one asshole for another. That doesn't make any sense. People are still voting with a lesser than two evils mentality when what we need are more good men and women running for office.

At the local level, there are small time campaigns with individuals scrapping at each other in the name of revenge, not for building up a community. Local residents know these candidates have dirty pasts, yet they fully support them. I can cite the election going on in Camden, Arkansas as an example. Everyone in that town should know that Stan Kendall has a questionable past as a dirty cop and even more unsavory pastimes prior to his career. Dirty. Chris Claybaker is also no angel and critics throw many of the same unsatisfied remarks in his direction. Only recently has a slightly more noble candidate appeared on the ballot, a local reporter by the name of Ed Parham. While Parham might have a reputation as a gossip reporter in some instances, he certainly has more of a reputable history and could definitely turn a crap town around. This is but one example, but I'm sure there are towns all across American where voters are picking sides and playing favorites, not voting for the betterment of their community. The dangerous alternative is to pick a candidate who holds crazy ideals simply because you don't like the other two main stream candidates (And Parham did hold some wacko beliefs).

David Vitter is still a viable candidate here in Louisiana. Why is that? Faith. Sure, he loves himself a good hooker, but he's a Republican Christian, so he's the lesser of two evils...and he's the only one running with an R on his sleeve. His challengers didn't survive.

I stand by my belief that government is not the root of the problem. We are. Our elected officials really do represent us. They mirror the dirty people who put them in office. We don't demand more from them, so they only put in the least amount of effort so we don't complain. You want change? Start with yourselves and work your way to the top. Otherwise, you'll just keep getting more of the same. Anyone who thinks otherwise is only in this to say their side won.

Fuck sides, man. What we need here is a little solidarity against big money.

America, where we do not learn from our mistakes.

Part of the problem I have with the Left-leaning main stream media is the disconnect it has with the goings-on among the real Right-wing electorate. When pundits sit at their desks discussing the power struggles going on in this country right now, they direct most of their focus at the elected officials who wear an R on their sleeve. The Left-leaning media does not hone in on their supporters. These pundits put things in context of an America which does not want to dive back into the ditch of the Bush years. A vote to the Right in the mid-term elections most likely will send us back into the old habits which got us into our present predicament to begin with.

The notion that we know where the mistakes were made cannot be any clearer. Those of us in the Center and on the Left seem to find solace in that ever popular quote, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." It's a good soundbyte. It does make sense. The problem is, the real world doesn't think that way, especially if the eyes looking out on the world are firmly planted in the head of someone Right-leaning. There is an alternate universe with a skewed version of reality chomping at the bit, hungry for control of this country.

Pundits need to take a vacation. They need to spend some time living in disguise among the entrenched Right wing zealots. Shreveport is just such a place, as is East Texas. I say, pack your bags and come on over here. You'll be shocked at what you learn after only a day or two among these southerners.

They do want the Bush years back and it has nothing to do with paying attention to the mistakes of the past. The mistakes are forgivable in their mind. Why? Because it fed into their paranoia. They could sleep at night knowing there was someone in the White House who wanted to kick some ass and who wouldn't let some Liberal pantywaist bring homosexuals into their churches and blacks into their neighborhoods. For them, our strength lies in our military, not our populace or our resilience. W gave them the out of sight, out of mind comfort. On top of all of that, the angst right now is deeply associated with the loss of an election, stirring up emotions only seen when two college football teams face off in the Southeastern Conference. They don't have the cajones to stand up against the corporate corruption and greed ruining our communities. They would rather have a job that kills them from the inside out than a government who fights for them to make the workplace safer and holds big business accountable for their misgivings. Our Left-leaning media does not know this group of people all that well. Unfortunately, I'm living among these kinds of people, distraught at the notion that I am living in some sort of personal Hell. We need to stomp these people out and shout them down the same way they go about handling us. The fight is on and we need to step up our efforts.

So while it might sound nice to be optimistic about the Democratic agenda and our success in previous elections, it has no bearing on what this country really wants, even if they want to drive us into a wall. It's a wishy washy way of thinking. The gloves need to come off. Barack Obama said it best in his speech the other day when he endorsed Harry Reid.

"We know how the movie ends when the other party is in charge. You don't have to guess how they'll govern, because we're still living with the damage from the last time they were governing...and they are still singing from the same hymnal. They haven't changed. They want to do the same stuff."

Unfortunately, Barack Obama still has faith in the American people. I do not. He thinks that Americans know that the policies of the previous administration will be remembered. He needs to recognize that the dialogue has been hijacked by the Tea Party and the spin has already begun on history barely even old enough to grow mold yet.

But even his quote targets elected officials and not the electorate. Don't get distracted, folks. We are up against more than a few idiots advocating chickens in exchange for health care and making lemonade out of children born out of incest. Their followers spew the same crap. We are up against the threat of idiocracy.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

And repeat we shall.

Again and again.

Until we learn our lesson.

Or until we poison ourselves and our planet in the name of our own selfish interests.

But by then, it's probably going to be too late.

Blanche Lincoln: Twisted Political Meaning

Blanche Lincoln is a conservative Democrat running to keep her seat in Arkansas. Anyone who followed the health care debate is familiar with this woman. She was just one of many so called "Democrats" holding up the process. Her reputation at the time was that of a member of Congress whose seat was in trouble.

Now that elections are coming, all the ads and commentary surrounding Blanche Lincoln are being twisted to fit some sort of anti-incumbency/anti-Obama agenda. Let's bring the nuts back to reality for a moment.

Her job was already in peril. From what most pundits said during the HCR debate, she was screwed and her attempts at opposing HCR were merely for show to save her job. Her present uphill battle has nothing to do with being an incumbent or being a Democrat. It has everything to do with things she did during her term in Congress.

The sad thing is, the media hasn't framed her in this light since the HCR debate. Somehow, her predicted loss is being used as a political ploy to convince the rest of America that people are coming after Democrats in the 2010 elections. While many other Democrats are facing battles in their home states, Blanche Lincoln is not one of the primary targets, even if they are building her up into one. When she loses her job, we should not interpret the result as a reflection on President Obama. It is simply a reflection of her inability to represent her constituents effectively.

Come on now people. Get a clue. This is all election fluff.