tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-42562969698273842492023-11-15T05:21:27.929-08:00Pulled Left and RightJeff Cunninghamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08897186065184755894noreply@blogger.comBlogger143125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4256296969827384249.post-83763272371039558492011-07-20T06:21:00.000-07:002011-07-20T07:11:52.817-07:00Closing This Chapter<div style="text-align: justify;">I'm going to be perfectly honest with everyone: this politics shit is stressful.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I've spent my entire adult life (all 12 years of it so far) paying enough attention to politics to give myself a good idea of what I'd be doing in the voting booth on Election Day, but rarely any more than that. I always had too much else going on -- work, school, personal issues -- and, frankly, other interests that took up too much of my time.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">And, if I'm still being honest, there was still an underlying cynicism: the idea that, no matter who I voted for, no matter whether the person had an R or a D (or, improbably, an I) after their name, things wouldn't <i>really </i>change all that much. But I never wanted to let my right and responsibility to vote go to waste, so I always tried to do the best I could.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>(Side note: apologies to liberals everywhere about 2000; I did in fact vote for George W. Bush back then. I was young, it was my first election. I tried to make up for it in 2004, but we all know how </i>that<i> went.)</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But in the lead-up to the 2008 election, a funny thing happened: I started to care more than usual. I was actually watching debates and reading different news sites. I watched both conventions; even though I thought I'd be voting for President Obama, I didn't want to completely rule out voting for John McCain, because I remembered liking him back in 2000.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Then Sarah Palin came along, and my mind was made up.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">My vote for Barack Obama wasn't just a personal endorsement of his ideas for this country, it was also an acknowledgement that he woke something within me. I was inspired like never before to do my part to shape this country the best way I thought possible; that my contribution, however small, would make a difference.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Fast-forward almost three years, and I'm at my wit's end. Not because I'm disenfranchised with the President (it <i>is</i> possible to disagree with someone without degrading them or writing them off completely), but because the reality of things is so damn <i>stressful</i>. In the case of politics, at least, the axiom "ignorance is bliss" really does have some truth to it.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">After all, if you never hear about searing budget cuts, you'll never stress over them.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I understand operating in Washington requires a fair bit of compromise. I understood that in the health care debate; though I preferred a public option, I knew it would never get the votes to pass -- and frankly, tanking the entire bill for that <i>one</i> idea out of ideological purity would be impractical.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Same goes for extending the Bush-era tax cuts (I hated that they did it, but if it meant extending unemployment benefits, then there was really no other choice). Same goes for not nominating Elizabeth Warren to run the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Ideological purity makes for great soundbites; it works wonders for riling up a base in the name of donations or support for primary elections. But in the confines of actual governance, such rigidity of principle gets the country nowhere. Even when Democrats held both chambers of Congress and the White House, ideological purity was impossible when it came time to actually craft legislation and make policy.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">More than anything, this is what rankles me about the Tea Party and establishment Republicans; the idea of ideological purity not only makes them look extreme (abolish the Department of Education, anyone?), but it makes governing little more than a high-stakes game of chicken.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Need proof? Just look at this manufactured debt ceiling crisis.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Ronald Reagan, patron saint of the Republican Party, would not be welcome in today's GOP. He raised taxes, he expanded the size of government (not to mention the federal deficit), he grew Social Security -- and during his presidency, the debt ceiling was raised 18 times.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Think Eric Cantor or Allen West or Rand Paul would welcome him today?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Ultimately, this ideological rigidity presents a conundrum for the GOP in 2012; how can the party select a candidate capable of winning a general election when the primary is nothing more than everyone trying to out-right-wing each other? Nice-guy moderate Jon Huntsman might be electable to the general public, but he has no prayer of winning his party's nomination. By the same token, do you really see Tea Party queen Michele Bachmann winning the general election?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">For the past three years, I've done everything I can to enact change in this country. I'll admit, I'm a fairly liberal dude; I think everyone (including the rich) should pay their share of taxes. I think there's really no point for all this endless war -- especially now that we've killed Osama bin Laden. I think everyone should be eligible for Medicare. I'd like to see us fund education the way we fund the Pentagon.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">On top of voting (in <i>every</i> election, not just the presidential election), I've joined activist groups, signed petitions, made donations to candidates and causes in which I believe. I started this blog, in the hope of getting my voice out there and finding others who share my views. I'm constantly writing the White House and my members of Congress, imploring them to fight for or against legislation.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Even with the stresses of my job, even with personal issues that pop up every so often, I've kept fighting the good fight. But increasingly, I find that it's not really doing any good. The corporate-owned media (which is not <i>nearly</i> as liberal as it's accused of being) still distorts and misinforms. Corporations still hold more sway over elected officials of both parties than the American people, crafting legislation that does little, if anything.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">There is no change. Part of that is President Obama's fault, but most it falls at the feet of the dysfunctional system in which he works. Congress is broken -- especially the Senate. Even the Supreme Court, once thought above all reproach, has succumbed to the excesses of political power. State legislatures and governors are as beholden to corporate interests as their federal counterparts.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I can't fight them all, and it genuinely feels like things won't get better, no matter what's done. With unemployment as bad as it is, and the special interests as entrenched as ever, I'm not really seeing results to match the effort I've put in over the last few years.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Look, I'm no fool; I knew this wouldn't be easy, and I knew that even if we did enact some changes, they would be modest at best. That's how this system apparently "works," particularly when the public face of the Republican Party is so obstructionist and reactionary that virtually every debate <i>starts</i> to the political right. But it seems like nothing is getting accomplished, and I can't keep putting myself out there, subjecting myself to more and more stress, only to see the further erosion of this country.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I suppose, in some way, that's what the other side wants. I think they want liberals so upset and disenfranchised that they stop fighting; that way, the Republicans' regressive agenda of stripping away rights for the middle class and regulations for the corporations can be fully enacted, disastrous consequences for the country be damned.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So even though this will be the final post I write, I will not be completely going away. I will still be at the polls, for every federal, state and local election. I will still write to Congress and the White House, to make sure my opinions are expressed. I may even still donate to candidates on occasion.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But constantly keeping track of everything going on? Keeping this page updated with views and opinions that are quickly degrading to little more than "Boy, I'd like to slap (insert name of Republican fucktard here) upside the head"? That's not right, and it's not healthy, and I can't let myself morph into that sort of person.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So this blog is ending. It might re-surface later on, in some form, if I find myself re-energized and not nearly as jaded as I currently am. But in a lot of ways, it feels like I've been stuck in the bottom of a well, screaming into the open in the vain hope that someone will hear my words and take heed.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The past few years have shown me that no one really hears it --- either because they don't want to, or because there are so many other voices screaming in their ears that my voice (and others like mine) gets drowned out. Either way, there are better, less stressful ways to do this.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I thank the few readers I had for their support. I'd like to say a difference was made, but I don't see it. This is one instance in which I'd love to be proven wrong.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Good night, and good luck.</div>Jeff Cunninghamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08897186065184755894noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4256296969827384249.post-70325252739583537192011-07-08T16:00:00.001-07:002011-07-08T16:36:41.120-07:00Debt Ceiling Debate Misguided<div style="text-align: justify;">There's no question our federal deficit -- and our debt -- need to be addressed. In the long term, our government has to get both of those things under control, both for the sake of our national economy and our standing in the rest of the world.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But in the short term, with our economic recovery slow and the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/08/june-jobs-report-reaction_n_893517.html">latest job numbers</a> showing no sign of improvement, focusing solely on deficits is problematic.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Never mind the fact that virtually every reputable economist argues that a reduction in spending makes a slow recovery worse. Never mind the silly debate over the debt ceiling -- which before now has <i>never</i> been controversial and might even violate the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">14th amendment</a> of the U.S. Constitution.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Right now, with unemployment at 9.2 percent, only one thing should matter: jobs.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">We need to stop people from losing their jobs -- in the private <i>and</i> <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/07/08/263588/the-conservative-recovery-continues-2/">public sector</a>. We need to make sure those who have lost their jobs have a lifeline while they undertake the arduous task of finding another job. We need to train people for new jobs, especially if they're coming from industries that are no longer in demand.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Most importantly, we need to make sure there are jobs out there for the unemployed to take. We need to stop companies from <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2011-02-16-job-application_N.htm">purposefully refusing to hire the unemployed</a>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The non-partisan CBO estimates the stimulus passed in 2009 saved or created <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-economy/2010/08/cbo_says_stimulus_may_have_add.html">3 million jobs</a> -- which is to be lauded -- but the bill could've been so much larger and so much more effective. In the meantime, Congress shifted its focus to health care reform, Wall Street reform, the DREAM Act, the START treaty, Iraq, Afghanistan, the deficit, repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell ... pretty much everything <i>but</i> jobs.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">When Republicans took control of the House last November, they rode the electoral wave mostly because of the lack of jobs; a weak economy and high unemployment never favors the incumbent party. But Congressional Republicans have focused on everything <i>but</i> jobs: de-funding Planned Parenthood, restricting choice, repealing the Affordable Care Act, refusing to let tax rates rise on the wealthiest two percent.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">And now, holding the economy hostage in debt ceiling negotiations.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Republicans want to keep tax rates where they are -- if not lower them even more -- and refuse to allow any deal that includes tax increases. They want Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid on the table, regardless of the fact that Social Security does not contribute to the deficit. Depending on who you believe, the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html">Obama administration might be willing</a> to put Social Security on the table.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But that's a post for another time.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I mentioned before that in years past, raising the debt ceiling has never been an issue; in fact, the debt ceiling was raised <a href="http://www.pensitoreview.com/2011/07/07/bush-raised-debt-ceiling-five-times/">five times</a> during George W. Bush's two terms in office. Apparently, we can keep borrowing money when it comes to fighting needless wars and giving the rich tax breaks that stagnate the economy ... but the second we want to borrow money to provide health care and take care of the middle class, it's a problem.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">There's also a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/08/eric-cantor-conflict-interest-debt-limit_n_893354.html">potential conflict of interest</a> for Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the Majority Leader in the House, who may benefit financially if the country defaults on Aug. 2.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">A recession is not the time to slash spending. Now is not the time to lay off teachers, police officers and firefighters. Now is not the time to punish seniors and the middle class for a recession caused by Wall Street and its handlers in Congress.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Now is the time to invest in job-creating programs, invest in infrastructure spending, which will provide jobs and strengthen this country's infrastructure for years to come.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Republicans are playing with this country's economy -- not just in the debt ceiling debate, but by <a href="http://www.post-journal.com/page/content.detail/id/587078/GOP-Blocking-Jobs-Creation.html?nav=5006">blocking</a> numerous bills in Congress designed to create jobs -- because they know a poor economy will benefit them at the polls. They don't want the economy to get better, because the Democrats control the White House and the Senate.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">And if you think the GOP would suddenly care once it got control of those branches back, then you're being naive.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Remember last month, when I quoted Keith Olbermann's point about the malfeasance of one political party and the timidity of the other? The debt ceiling debate is a perfect illustration of this; the Republicans are purposefully holding the American economy hostage, and we may see a Democratic administration giving in to the GOP's demands, and abandoning core Democrat principles, in order to prevent a default(when, really, all the President would have to do is invoke the 14th amendment and all of this would be moot).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Republicans are playing with the middle class and seniors; they're playing with people's lives, and deliberately ignoring the unemployment crisis, thinking it will sweep the party back into power come November 2012. Electoral gains -- and massive contributions from the GOP's corporate benefactors (thank you, <i>Citizens United</i>) -- are the endgame here.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The only question is, what are we going to do about it?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><i><br /></i></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><i>Make yourself heard!</i></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><i><br /></i></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact">White House</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><a href="http://www.house.gov/">U.S. House of Representatives</a></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><a href="http://www.senate.gov/">U.S. Senate</a></b></div>Jeff Cunninghamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08897186065184755894noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4256296969827384249.post-26733291286527136512011-06-29T06:24:00.000-07:002011-06-29T06:35:16.486-07:00For It ... Until They're Against It<div style="text-align: justify;">The reality of the political flip-flop -- as opposed to the comfy flip-flop that's popular in the summertime -- is nothing new; politicians have been changing their positions on issues for decades, particularly when an election approaches and a candidate is trying his or her best to pander to a segment of the electorate.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">How else can one explain once-moderate Republicans like Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty tacking further to the right as the Republican Party tries to decide who's going to run against President Obama in the 2012 election?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But we've seen a ton of filp-flopping in the last three years, and just about all of it has centered around the Republican Party's deep-seeded mistrust (I'm reluctant to say hatred) for the president. Elected GOP leaders and their corporate backers are so set on making sure President Obama doesn't succeed that they're willing to abandon their own ideas once the president gives his stamp of approval.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Rather than list all of the examples myself, I'll allow Rachel Maddow to take over from here. She outlined this recent phenomenon on her show on Monday, noting the party's priorities of making President Obama look bad -- even if it means risking the country's economy.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Because let's face it, a broken economy benefits the GOP in the coming elections, suffering Americans be damned.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc2a516b" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640"><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=43556754&width=420&height=245"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed name="msnbc2a516b" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" flashvars="launch=43556754&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p></div>Jeff Cunninghamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08897186065184755894noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4256296969827384249.post-61931040972639825652011-06-21T10:57:00.001-07:002011-06-21T11:24:42.156-07:00'As I Was Saying ...'<div style="text-align: justify;"><i><blockquote>"This is to be a newscast of contextualization, to be delivered with a viewpoint that the weakest citizen of this country is more important than the strongest corporation. That the nation is losing its independence through the malfeasance of one political party and the timidity of the other."</blockquote></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">With that mission statement on Monday, June 20, 2011, one of the most reliable and forceful progressive voices in America returned to the airwaves. Keith Olbermann returned with the debut of the newest edition of <i>Countdown With Keith Olbermann</i> on Current TV Monday night, and save a new set, a new channel and some other small tweaks, the show seems to have changed little in the six months since it last aired on MSNBC.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Which is a good thing.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The theme music is (largely) the same, as is Olbermann's "Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow?" opening. The format of the show is largely unchanged -- though "Oddball" is now called "Time Marches On." His "Worst Persons in the World" segment, complete with organ music, returns, though Olbermann seemed to be trying to make it extra-clear this segment is supposed to be sarcastic.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Olbermann had three of his contributors as guests -- filmmaker Michael Moore, author and former Nixon administration member John Dean and <i>Daily Kos</i> founder Markos Moulitsas (now that he no longer had to worry about crybaby Joe Scarborough) -- and the topics ranged from Libya to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to the state of the GOP presidential candidates to a little MSNBC-bashing, for good measure.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">By and large, this was the <i>Countdown</i> progressives knew and loved. Olbermann wasn't kidding in the press leading up to the premiere that the show would remain largely unchanged. This might've been simply because it was his first episode on a new network and Olbermann didn't want to stray too far from the familiar; it'll be interesting to see how the show evolves in the coming weeks and months.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I have two minor quibbles with Olbermann's return on Monday, the first of which actually has nothing to do with Olbermann himself. Current TV is not available through my cable provider, and seeing as how I live in an area where my cable company has a monopoly, my choices are either the cable company or satellite.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Current TV's website allows you to enter your zip code to find where the network is carried in your area. If it is not offered, Current gives you three ways in which to convince your provider to carry Current TV. Time will tell how successful those efforts are, but in the meantime, those of us without the network will have to find other ways to get our dose of Keith.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Secondly, when Olbermann and Dean were discussing <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/us/politics/19thomas.html?_r=1&hp">Justice Thomas' glaring conflicts of interest</a>, Olbermann raised the question as to why Congressional Democrats were not screaming for Justice Thomas to recuse himself from cases in which there are conflicts of interest and/or resign. It was a fair question to ask, considering how Republicans would smell blood in the water if a liberal justice were accused of the same thing; however, one very important point was ignored.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">There was a member of Congress -- a Democrat, no less -- who was hounding Justice Thomas regarding his conflicts of interest. But <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/16/anthony-weiner-resigns_n_878229.html">he resigned last week</a>, in part because his own party wouldn't support him amid a scandal that was, admittedly, disturbingly tame.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So not only are Democrats not pressuring Justice Thomas, but they kicked out the one guy who <i>was</i>. This is that timidity Olbermann mentioned above.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">All in all, it's wonderful to have Keith Olbermann back on television. There are legitimate concerns about Current TV's reach, or what Olbermann can do with a little-known network that isn't available everywhere, but if his previous work in establishing and re-branding ESPN and MSNBC are any indication, it just might work.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Moreover, Olbermann's no-nonsense approach and adherence to the facts is desperately needed in today's media climate, and his frustration gives a voice to progressives who can no longer find such a passionate, forceful voice among their own representatives.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This is why I fill so much space on this blog with Olbermann's work; his voice fills a void that desperately needed to be filled; if the progressive we put in office will not speak up and fight for us, we need someone in the media who will -- and Olbermann, all his personal issues be damned, is that person.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Liberals need Olbermann; more importantly, though, the country needs him.</div>Jeff Cunninghamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08897186065184755894noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4256296969827384249.post-12720302452200435552011-06-08T11:20:00.000-07:002011-06-08T11:39:23.794-07:00A Matter of Priorities<div style="text-align: justify;">You will find no condemnations of Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) on this page with regards to his Twitter photo scandal. You will find no sophomoric jokes, no links to any of the stories or calls for his resignation.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">You will find no mocking of Sarah Palin and Donald Trump getting together in New York for crappy pizza. You will find no shaming of the former Alaska governor's continued ignorance of all things American -- in this instance, the history of Paul Revere.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Sure, these topics are salacious, amusing and borderline pathetic. But they're not important.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">They don't matter as much as the debate over <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/157761-geithner-debt-ceiling-debate-ridiculous">raising the debt ceiling</a> (a prospect that, most of the time, is hardly controversial). Or the debate over the <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20050970-503544.html">Republicans' plan</a> to replace Medicare with a voucher program for seniors to purchase private health insurance. Or the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/03/jobs-report-reactions_n_871207.html">latest jobs report</a>, continuing the narrative of a jobless recovery.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The media should instead be focusing on Republican tactics -- both on the federal and state level -- to restrict access to choice and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/08/indiana-planned-parenthood_n_873148.html">defund Planned Parenthood</a>. Or the upcoming debate on (once again) letting the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/02/obama-pledges-no-bush-tax-cut-extension_n_870680.html">Bush-era tax rates expire</a>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The above topics are the sorts of things that need to be reported on and discussed. The beltway media and the rest of the country's journalists (setting aside sports and entertainment reporters, because of the specialized nature of their fields) should be focusing on actual issues right now, regardless of how amusing or sexy they might be.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Rep. Weiner's package has no bearing on this country's unemployment rate, and since Palin has as much of a chance at winning the presidency as I do, she's not nearly as important as making sure we reduce the federal deficit without harming this country's middle class and seniors.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Every journalist or pundit who has spent air time or printing ink or web storage on the likes of Rep. Weiner and Palin instead of any of the other topics mentioned above have failed -- both their profession and this country. It is but another example of everything that is wrong with American media (and, when extrapolated, everything wrong with American politics).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">People need jobs. People need to know the economy is recovering and they're not one decision away from financial ruin. People need to be reassured that the banks and the corporations and the insurance companies can't screw them over anymore. People need to know President Obama and Congress are on their side, not the monied interests.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">People do not need to know what Rep. Weiner is packing. People do not need to know that many middle schoolers have a better understanding of American history than Palin.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Shame you, mainstream media. Shame every last one of you.</div>Jeff Cunninghamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08897186065184755894noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4256296969827384249.post-32483566832813319432011-05-27T21:05:00.000-07:002011-05-27T21:09:22.523-07:00The Problem With Paul Ryan's Medicare Plan<div style="text-align: justify;">Ezra Klein -- he of MSNBC,<i> Newsweek</i> and <i>The Washington Post</i>, is one of the best writers covering politics in Washington, largely because he's a policy wonk with the uncanny ability to explain complex legislation in such a way that non-wonks (read: just about everyone else) can understand it.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Today, I read on his <i>Washington Post</i> blog a detailed (yet easy-to-read) rebuttal of the Medicare proposal put forth by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) -- you know, the one that would dismantle Medicare and replace it with a voucher program to help senior citizens purchase health insurance.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Rather than engage in partisan talking points (I get the sense that Klein's a fairly liberal dude), he sticks to facts and details. He even supplies charts!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Read Klein's post <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/responding-to-ryan/2011/05/19/AGZVStCH_blog.html">here</a> -- and feel free to make this thing viral.</div>Jeff Cunninghamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08897186065184755894noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4256296969827384249.post-89770100751503252862011-05-27T18:48:00.000-07:002011-05-27T21:05:21.981-07:00Deficit and Unemployment Linked<div style="text-align: justify;">Even with America still facing an unemployment crisis -- the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/06/unemployment-rate-april_n_858434.html">latest numbers</a> continue pointing toward the narrative of a "jobless recovery" -- politicians in Washington and the media which covers them have instead focused on the deficit.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Whenever federal and <a href="http://www.news-record.com/content/2011/04/08/article/lawmakers_push_extend_unemployment_benefits">state</a> lawmakers argue against extending unemployment benefits, they often frame the argument in terms of the deficit. Instead of focusing on jobs, Congress (including a newly-elected Republican majority in the House) shifts its attention to matters related to the deficit.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20050970-503544.html">budget plan forwarded</a> by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), which would replace Medicare with vouchers for seniors to purchase insurance from private companies, was introduced in an effort to rein in the deficit.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The debate over the <a href="http://pulledleftandright.blogspot.com/2010/12/tax-cuts-deal-compromise-or-caving.html">Bush tax cuts</a> that took place back in December was framed around the deficit -- because raising taxes (even on a small percentage of the population) would mean more revenue, which is half the federal budget formula.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Republicans' refusal to raise taxes -- and in some regard, their insistence upon lowering taxes <i>even more</i> -- has made the revenue portion of the deficit debate a dicey one.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The current <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/157761-geithner-debt-ceiling-debate-ridiculous">debate over raising the debt ceiling</a>, which is necessary by August to prevent the country from defaulting on its debts and likely causing another recession, has been accentuated by Republican lawmakers requiring more spending cuts -- you guessed it -- in the name of deficit reduction.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Even debates over America's military action -- officially, we're only at war in Afghanistan (even though we still have troops in Iraq and we're doing who the hell knows what in Libya) -- are framed, in part, along the deficit. Proponents for ending America's wars argue that ending military action would save billions of dollars the country doesn't have.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">They're not wrong.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But there's one thing that will help the deficit that almost no one is talking about: lowering the unemployment rate.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Remember what I said earlier about revenue being half the budget equation? Well, taxes are government revenue, and with almost 10 percent of American's working population <i>not working</i>, that's less taxable income available to local, state and federal governments.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It's really quite simple: put more people back to work, that means more people are earning paychecks -- which also means more people are paying taxes. A lower unemployment rate translates into more government revenue.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Think back to when President Clinton was in office; it's no coincidence that he left office with a massive budget surplus while he <a href="http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/accomp.htm">saw unemployment dip</a> to 5.6 percent. His 1993 Economic Plan, which raised taxes on the wealthiest earners, also had a lot to do with it, but don't discount the simple formula of putting people to work and collecting taxes from their paychecks.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Look at your pay stub; though different states have different tax laws, everyone sees taxes taken out for federal, local and state governments, for Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. If you don't collect a paycheck, you're not contributing tax dollars to those revenue streams.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">If you're out of work for a lengthy period of time, you might even be taking money from the government, in the form of unemployment benefits. Also, debates over the solvency of <a href="http://hr.cch.com/news/uiss/101210a.asp">Social Security</a> and <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/medicare/161177-sebelius-defends-medicare-solvency">Medicare</a> have been steeped, in part, on how many people are working, and thus paying taxes into those programs.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I'm not saying this is the only fix; putting people back to work will not solve <i>all</i>, or even most, of our problems. But if we're taking on the federal deficit, every option that doesn't unnecessarily burden the middle class and/or the elderly deserves consideration.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I realize that job-creating programs will require government spending -- and thus borrowing. Stimulating the economy in this way requires a certain amount of investment, and you know conservative deficit hawks will scream over it, like they scream over everything else.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But a short-term investment would go a long way toward putting Americans back to work (which was the intent behind the stimulus package, and an argument for why it should've been more robust); tax cuts for the wealthy do not create jobs, but economic stimulus does.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">And the more people work, the more taxes they pay. Which reduces the deficit, all without cutting necessary programs.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">See how simple that is?</div>Jeff Cunninghamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08897186065184755894noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4256296969827384249.post-15350981612141580852011-05-18T08:34:00.000-07:002011-05-18T09:00:56.776-07:00Common Sense or Courage?<div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span">If it seems like the modern Republican Party (the elected officials and those who represent them in the media, not necessarily everyday people) is tacking further to the right by the day, you're not imagining things. It is in fact happening.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span">In a way, it represents a Catch-22 for Republicans; in today's political climate, being a moderate Republican isn't going to win you the party's nomination (in some districts and states, it won't even win you an election). However, being so far to the right will make you virtually un-electable for the vast majority of the population in a general election.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span">So you might win a nomination, but never an election. Meanwhile, the moderate Republican who might have a chance in a general election would never win a primary.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span">Damned if you do, damned if you don't.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span">Newt Gingrich found that out this week after an appearance on NBC's <i>Meet the Press</i>. On the program Sunday, Gingrich -- who hasn't held public office in almost a decade -- <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/15/newt-gingrich-paul-ryan-medicare_n_862133.html">criticized</a> the budget plan proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), which would effectively end Medicare and replace it with a voucher program. He called it "right-wing social engineering" and said it went too far.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span">Seems sensible enough; why throw out Medicare and leave seniors to fend for themselves in the private insurance industry, where some experts say their <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/07/nation/la-na-gop-budget-20110408">health care costs would double</a>? Whatever you think of Gingrich's politics, it was a sensible argument.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span">Which is exactly why practically the entire GOP establishment lambasted him.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span">Apparently, Gingrich was hounded so much that <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/17/newt-gingrich-apologizes-_n_863398.html">he apologized</a> to Rep. Ryan on Tuesday. That's right; Gingrich, essentially, had to apologize for making sense. Only in the current Republican Party would you have to apologize for making sense.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span">That's not even taking into account for the fact that Gingrich was <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/201003240027">once a supporter</a> for an individual mandate for health insurance; you know, before President Obama endorsed the idea as part of his health care reform package in 2009. It also ignores a host of statements for the former Speaker of the House has made relating to President Obama that can be seen as racially-charged.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2011/05/15/gingrich_food_stamp_president">Food Stamp President</a>, anyone?</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span">But if you want to look for courage within the GOP (which Gingrich doesn't have, since he can't seem to stick to one position), how about the Senators from Maine? Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both Republicans, <a href="http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/18/6667567-maybe-its-safe-to-vote-against-subsidies-for-very-wealthy-oil-companies">bucked their party on Tuesday</a> when they joined 48 Democrats to vote in favor of ending multi-billion subsidies to Big Oil.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span">That Sens. Collins and Snowe voted against the Republicans isn't anything new; the two women are viewed as moderates within the party -- a dying breed, to be sure. Their votes were not enough to overcome a filibuster, though, as the other Republicans voted in lock-step and had the help of three Democrats: Mary Landrieu (La.), Mark Begich (Alaska) and Ben Nelson (Neb.).</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span"></span></span></div><span><div style="text-align: justify;">In explaining her vote, Sen. Collins wrote, "Reducing or eliminating unnecessary subsidies and outdated tax breaks is a commonsense step toward deficit reduction." Sen. Snowe added: "It is difficult to justify oil development incentives given the current level of crude oil prices, and the fact that the U.S. government has to borrow money to pay for these incentives."</div></span><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><span><div style="text-align: justify;">It all seems perfectly sensible, doesn't it? Well, then it wouldn't surprise you to know that Sen. Snowe is being primaried from the right, nor would it surprise you if either woman threw her name into the GOP presidential race and found herself flailing at the polls, regardless of how electable either Senator might seem to the country as a whole.</div></span></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><span><div style="text-align: justify;">To the modern Republican Party -- and its media enablers -- making sense and acting responsibly within the confines of government is not the goal. Right-wing social engineering and trying to make President Obama a one-term president are the goals, and everything else -- deficit reduction and job creation included -- be damned.</div></span></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><span><div style="text-align: justify;">The way things are going for the GOP these days, I don't see 2012 turning out very well for them, because the party is reaching a point where even some of its voters won't want to support it anymore. And when you lose your base, then you're really up a creek without a paddle.</div></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px; " ></span></span></div></div>Jeff Cunninghamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08897186065184755894noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4256296969827384249.post-43821408250348319332011-05-18T07:21:00.000-07:002011-05-18T07:47:01.409-07:00Simply Despicable<div style="text-align: justify;">Anyone who follows this blog knows I am no fan of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Not simply because he's a Republican (that, I can live with) -- but because of his constant flip-flopping over the years over various positions, as well as the egregious lack of judgement he displayed in picking former Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate in the 2008 presidential race.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">That said, I would never question Sen. McCain's love for this country, nor would I take issue with his record as a military man -- and I certainly wouldn't presume to know more about Sen. McCain, a POW during the war in Vietnam, about torture.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Which makes what presumptive GOP presidential nominee Rick Santorum's <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/17/santorum-mccain-doesnt-understand-torture_n_863306.html">comments</a> to a conservative radio host on Tuesday both baffling and disgusting. In speaking with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt (sounds like a DC Comics character), Santorum claimed that torture was in fact a big part of gaining the intelligence that eventually led to the killing of Osama bin Laden.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Never mind the fact that people like Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, and Sen. McCain both said the intelligence never came from the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques."</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So what did Santorum have to say regarding McCain? Read:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><p style="font-family: Arial, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, sans-serif; list-style-type: none; list-style-position: initial; list-style-image: initial; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; line-height: 18px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 13px; "></p><blockquote>"Everything I've read shows that we would not have gotten this information as to who this man was if it had not been gotten information from people who were subject to enhanced interrogation. And so this idea that we didn't ask that question while Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was being waterboarded, he (McCain) doesn't understand how enhanced interrogation works. I mean, you break somebody, and after they're broken, they become cooperative. And that's when we got this information. And one thing led to another, and led to another, and that's how we ended up with bin Laden,"</blockquote><p></p><p style="list-style-type: none; list-style-position: initial; list-style-image: initial; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: normal; " >That's right ... Santorum expects us to believe that Sen. McCain knows nothing about torture -- never mind all that bugaboo about Sen. McCain spending five and a half years as a POW in north Vietnam. Never mind that Sen. McCain was subject to such vigorous physical treatment that he can never raise his arms above his head again (which is why I will never make fun of the way he moves his arms).</span></p><p style="list-style-type: none; list-style-position: initial; list-style-image: initial; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: normal; " >You're right, Rick Santorum; there's no way in hell John McCain knows more than you do about the effectiveness of torture. You are the all-knowing one when it comes to "enhanced interrogation techniques," aren't you?</span></p><p style="list-style-type: none; list-style-position: initial; list-style-image: initial; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: normal; " >All this time, I thought you were nothing more than a bigot who <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_controversy_regarding_homosexuality">likened same-sex marriage to bestiality, adultery and bigamy</a>. Here I thought you were just some self-righteous blowhard who just so happened to have a really disgusting last name (seriously; Google the word "santorum" -- fair warning, it is both disgusting and NSFW).</span></p><p style="list-style-type: none; list-style-position: initial; list-style-image: initial; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: normal; " >But no; apparently, you're a national security and torture expert. You're so good, you know more about torture than someone who was tortured for half a decade while serving his country!</span></p><p style="list-style-type: none; list-style-position: initial; list-style-image: initial; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: normal; " >Do us all a favor, Mr. Santorum, and go away. It's bad enough you're a bigot and hypocrite, but once you start spouting shit like that about someone who fought for this country, who nearly gave his life for this country, you lose what tiny sliver of credibility you had left. You already had no shot at the presidency, but by speaking so ignorantly of someone who so proudly served this country, you are sure as hell not fit to be our Commander-in-Chief.</span></p><p style="list-style-type: none; list-style-position: initial; list-style-image: initial; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: normal; " >I realize Sen. McCain's office refuses to dignify Santorum's slime with a response, but part of me wants Sen. McCain to drag him behind the Capitol and knock out a few teeth -- after <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/13/john-mccain-glenn-beck_n_861528.html">giving Glenn Beck a swift ass-kicking</a> for mocking daughter Meghan McCain for her appearance in a recent skin cancer PSA.</span></p><p style="list-style-type: none; list-style-position: initial; list-style-image: initial; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; line-height: 18px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: normal; " >Show some damn respect, Santorum -- if you even know what that word means.</span></p></div>Jeff Cunninghamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08897186065184755894noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4256296969827384249.post-21472296475847919982011-05-12T06:55:00.000-07:002011-05-13T13:36:52.457-07:00Sickening ...<div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" >Remember back in 2009, when the legislation in Uganda introduced <a href="http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/anti-homosexuality-bill-2009.pdf">legislation</a> that would make homosexuality illegal -- and even punishable by death? Remember when Rachel Maddow, with help from Jeff Sharlet, linked American politicians to the legislation -- primarily through the secretive religious group The Family?</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" ><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" >For a variety of reasons, that story fell off the proverbial radar in recent months, but the bill returned to the news this week. On Wednesday, MSNBC reported that Uganda was likely to drop the legislation. Quoting MSNBC:</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" ><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; line-height: 21px; " ><blockquote>The future of the bill remained murky. Wednesday was parliament's last scheduled day of session, and President Yoweri Museveni was scheduled on Thursday to be sworn in after his February re-election. It wasn't clear if the bill could be carried forward to the next session or if the bill's author would have to offer a new bill, which he has said he will do if needed.</blockquote></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; line-height: 21px; " ><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; line-height: normal; " >Despite that burst of good news, Maddow <a href="http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/11/6623908-uganda-may-shelve-kill-the-gays-bill-for-now-update-or-not">theorized</a> that the bill would still see the light of day at some point, because David Buhati, the man who drafted the legislation and has strong ties to The Family, remained steadfast even in the face of international condemnation.</span></i></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; line-height: normal; " ><br /></span></i></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; line-height: normal; " >There wasn't even any guarantee Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni would sign the bill if it passed, so good news all around, right?</span></i></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; line-height: normal; " ><br /></span></i></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; line-height: normal; " >Well ... maybe not.</span></i></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; line-height: normal; " ><br /></span></i></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; line-height: normal; " >Box Turtle Bulletin is now <a href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/05/11/32727">reporting</a> the bill could be up for a vote on Friday -- and that it might pass. That's right ... we're once again staring at the prospect of a nation declaring that homosexuality is illegal. Not just being a homosexual, but knowing someone is homosexual and not turning them in, knowing someone is homosexual, but giving them a job.</span></i></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; line-height: normal; " ><br /></span></i></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; line-height: normal; " >We're talking jail time. We're talking the death penalty. Simply for being homosexual.</span></i></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; line-height: normal; " ><br /></span></i></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; line-height: normal; " >Here in America, we worry about marriage equality and benefits for same-sex partners that equal those for heterosexual couples. We worry about same-sex couples being able to adopt children. Until recently, homosexuals couldn't even serve openly in our military.</span></i></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; line-height: normal; " ><br /></span></i></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; line-height: normal; " >In fact, they technically <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110512/ap_on_go_co/us_defense_budget">still can't</a>.</span></i></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; line-height: normal; " ><br /></span></i></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; line-height: normal; " >The problems facing homosexuals in America are numerous, and they are not to be taken lightly. But at least our country is not in the business of legally sanctioning jail time and murder for people simply because of their lifestyle.</span></i></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; line-height: normal; " ><br /></span></i></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; line-height: normal; " >Bigotry is abhorrent and dangerous regardless, but Uganda is taking it to the extreme -- and the fact that we have members of Congress who are linked to Buhati and his allies is a sickening reality.</span></i></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; line-height: normal; " ><br /></span></i></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; line-height: normal; " >Uganda could legalize an act that would be considered a hate crime in most other civilized countries. I honestly do not have the words to describe how vile and sickening that truth is.</span></i></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; line-height: normal; " ><br /></span></i></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; line-height: normal; " >CREDO Action has crafted a petition in an effort to stop the bill in its tracks. You can read the petition, sign it and share it on various social media platforms <a href="http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/uganda_kill_bill/?rc=fb_share1">here</a>.</span></i></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; line-height: normal; " ><br /></span></i></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; line-height: normal; " >This is not an instance where we can sit back and ignore the problem because it's not on our shores. Buhati's connections to The Family -- and the American politicians who secretly call themselves members -- make this an even more disturbing problem.</span></i></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; line-height: normal; " ><br /></span></i></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; line-height: normal; " >But more than that, this is an issue of human dignity and fairness. If Uganda can legalize the killing of a man for loving another man, what stops the next nation that wants to do it? The potential domino effect is horrifying, almost as much as the legislation itself.</span></i></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; line-height: normal; " ><br /></span></i></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; line-height: normal; " >This bill is evil, and it must be stopped. Hatred and bigotry have no place in this world, and they certainly have to place in a national legislature.</span></i></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; line-height: normal; "><br /></span></i></span></span></div>Jeff Cunninghamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08897186065184755894noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4256296969827384249.post-89433398871225778452011-05-02T06:24:00.000-07:002011-05-02T07:23:40.167-07:00After 10 Long Years ...<div style="text-align: justify;">... Osama bin Laden <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/01/osama-bin-laden-dead-killed_n_856091.html">is dead</a>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">President Obama announced in a rare Sunday night announcement that U.S. forces -- reportedly Navy SEALs -- raided a mansion outside Islamabad, Pakistan on Sunday, and that bin Laden was killed in a firefight by a bullet to the head.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In a sense, the news brings a finality to America's decade-long mission in Afghanistan -- even though no one can seriously suggest that we bring the troops home now that bin Laden is dead. I would love that (for a number of reasons), but a complete troop withdrawal at this point isn't feasible.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Political maneuvering will undoubtedly take over, if it hasn't already. Some will note that President Obama managed in three years what President Bush never accomplished in two terms; others will claim that 2012 is now in the bag for President Obama.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">At this point, I'll simply call this a victory for America. Regardless of his current status within al Qaeda, bin Laden was the mastermind of the worst terrorist attacks ever perpetrated on U.S. soil, and the fact that American forces brought him down is a cause for celebration.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Is it a bit skeevy to be, in effect, celebrating the death of another human being? A little, but when one considers what bin Laden did in his life -- not just masterminding 9/11, but also being responsible for the bombing of the USS Cole, and a number of other atrocities -- it takes some of the sting out of it.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Besides, imagine the circus if he'd been captured alive and we faced the prospect of trying him. As crass as this sounds, this was never going to end with bin Laden being brought in alive. He was always either going to be killed, or he was going to hide out long enough that he died of natural causes before forces could get to him.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">One thing this <i>does</i> do (despite the myriad of questions going forward -- ranging from what do we do now in Afghanistan to what were we doing in Pakistan to how we prepare for a potential backlash from al Qaeda) is solidify President Obama's stance on the War of Terror. Being a Democrat -- and someone who's long chastised "dumb wars" -- the president has often been criticized for his stance on foreign policy.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But in the span of six weeks, he deliberated with his senior staff on actionable intelligence regarding bin Laden, then on Friday, he gave the order to conduct the mission. Sunday night, bin Laden was dead and Americans were celebrating.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Does that sound like someone who's weak when it comes to military operations?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Either way, bin Laden's death is a significant chapter in American history, and it is a cause worthy of celebration. We should not, however, overreact and proclaim the end of combat missions in Afghanistan or the War on Terror.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Don't get me wrong: I would be elated if tomorrow, we announced that every combat troop serving in Afghanistan and Pakistan was coming home and that we were ceasing operations -- both because it would mean fewer American casualties and because it would save us a boatload of money.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But it's not that simple. It should be, but it's not.</div>Jeff Cunninghamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08897186065184755894noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4256296969827384249.post-9924070527806350462011-04-26T18:33:00.000-07:002011-04-26T18:50:57.486-07:00One More Thing ...<div style="text-align: justify;">Regarding socialism, I wanted to make a point that I inexplicably left out of my last post. The frequency with which President Obama has been accused of socialism -- and the alarming speed with which he has fled from that word -- disturbs me, and it makes me wonder about the true purpose behind the GOP throwing that word against him constantly.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Now, bear in mind, this is my own opinion, based largely on what I have seen and heard dating back to the 2008 presidential campaign. I don't have anything hard or substantiative to prove this feeling.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I wonder ... do those on the right call President Obama a socialist because they truly feel he is one? Let's face it, if he was a socialist, he wouldn't have taken single-payer off the table at the beginning of the health care debate. In fact, he would've likely advocated for opening Medicare to every American citizen.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Cause that's a socialist thing to do (not to mention a damn fine idea).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I don't think the establishment GOP -- and by this, I mean elected officials, talking heads and media personalities -- truly believes President Obama is a socialist. Instead, I think they use "socialist" as a code word, a replacement for a word they <i>really</i> want to use.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">These people can't use the word they really want, because they know the public outrage would render their scheme useless. Racism still exists in this country, but we have progressed enough as a country where the use of that particular word brings with it heaps of rightful scorn. If a Republican were to call President Obama that word, his or her political career would, in effect, be over.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But by calling President Obama a socialist, these people are playing to those same emotions and fears, but they're disguising it in a code word -- a word that some people truly don't know the meaning of, which provides the GOP all the fear it needs.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It's classic <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Strategy">Southern Strategy</a>; play on the racial fears of white people without actually being racist. The Southern Strategy, which has existed in one form or another for decades, thrives of subtlety -- that's the only way it can be successful.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">President Obama is no socialist; you know it, I know it, the Republican Party knows it. But the party is choosing to play on the fears of the conservative portion of the electorate, while simultaneously hoping to pry the ill-informed and frustrated independents from the Democrats, by using code words.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">We all know what word they <i>want</i> to use on President Obama, just as they know using that word would be political suicide. So they mask their hate in a word they're betting a lot of people don't understand.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">And sadly, it's working.</div>Jeff Cunninghamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08897186065184755894noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4256296969827384249.post-45066987924455561922011-04-26T08:38:00.000-07:002011-04-26T08:43:12.337-07:00A History Lesson<div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote></blockquote>This blog has offered space before for those who wish to defend the concept of socialism -- I refer specifically to <a href="http://pulledleftandright.blogspot.com/2010/11/odds-and-ends.html">Lawrence O'Donnell's defense</a> of it back in November -- so forgive me if this post is a little redundant.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">John Nichols has an article in the May 2, 2011 edition of <i>The Nation</i> magazine titled "How Socialists Built America." The article, adapted from <i>The 'S' Word: a Short History of an American Tradition ... Socialism</i>, examines the role socialism has played in the history of America, particularly in the era of McCarthyism and during Lyndon Johnson's presidency.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The parallels are staggering.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/159929/how-socialists-built-america?page=0,0">entire article</a> is well worth the read, but here's a snippet: </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><p style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.6em; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; color: rgb(29, 29, 29); font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; "></p><blockquote><p style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.6em; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; "><span class="Apple-style-span" >Obama really is avoiding consideration of socialist, or even mildly social democratic, responses to the problems that confront him. He took the single-payer option off the table at the start of the healthcare debate, rejecting the approach that in other countries has provided quality care to all citizens at lower cost. His supposedly “socialist” response to the collapse of the auto industry was to give tens of billions in bailout funding to GM and Chrysler, which used the money to lay off thousands of workers and then relocate several dozen plants abroad—an approach about as far as a country can get from the social democratic model of using public investment and industrial policy to promote job creation and community renewal. And when BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil well exploded, threatening the entire Gulf Coast, instead of putting the Army Corps of Engineers and other government agencies in charge of the crisis, Obama left it to the corporation that had lied about the extent of the spill, had made decisions based on its bottom line rather than environmental and human needs, and had failed at even the most basic tasks.</span></p><p style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.6em; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; "><span class="Apple-style-span" >So we should take the president at his word when he says he’s acting on free-market principles. The problem, of course, is that Obama’s rigidity in this regard is leading him to dismiss ideas that are often sounder than private-sector fixes. Borrowing ideas and approaches from socialists would not make Obama any more of a socialist than Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt or Dwight Eisenhower. All these presidential predecessors sampled ideas from Marxist tracts or borrowed from Socialist Party platforms so frequently that the <em style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 3px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; ">New York Times</em> noted in a 1954 profile the faith of an aging Norman Thomas that he “had made a great contribution in pioneering ideas that have now won the support of both major parties”—ideas like “Social Security, public housing, public power developments, legal protection for collective bargaining and other attributes of the welfare state.” The fact is that many of the men who occupied the Oval Office before Obama knew that implementation of sound socialist or social democratic ideas did not put them at odds with the American experiment or the Constitution.</span></p></blockquote><p style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.6em; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px; margin-left: 0px; color: rgb(29, 29, 29); font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; "></p></div>Jeff Cunninghamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08897186065184755894noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4256296969827384249.post-80401135198258371982011-04-25T17:48:00.000-07:002011-04-25T18:50:59.947-07:00An Open Letter to Disappointed Liberals<div style="text-align: justify;">Okay, fellow liberals, progressives -- whatever we're calling ourselves these days -- there's something really important I need to get off my chest. I've actually felt this way for quite a while, but haven't been able to properly articulate my thoughts.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In light of recent political battles, and the forthcoming 2012 elections, I feel it is my duty to try.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Am I a so-called "disappointed liberal?" Yeah, I guess you could say I am. Don't get me wrong; there are a lot of things that have gone right since the 2008 elections. You'd never know it by paying attention to the mainstream media, but some good things have happened.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Comprehensive health care reform has passed after over a century of trying.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">A stimulus package prevented the recession from getting worse, even making minor (and debatable) improvements.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Comprehensive Wall Street Reform passed.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Combat missions have officially ended in Iraq.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Sensible credit card reforms and a reformation of the student loan system have been enacted.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military policy concerning homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces was repealed, paving the way for homosexual and bisexual service members to be who they are while serving their country.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But I'll be the first to admit things aren't perfect.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I was a strong advocate for the public option as part of the health care reform package; if we couldn't have a strong single-payer system (President Obama, despite saying in the past that he advocated such a system, took it off the table before the debate truly began), then a strong public option as a balance to the private insurance industry was a sensible compromise.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Wall Street Reform bill, in part because of retiring Sen. Chris Dodds' (D-Conn.) ties to the banking industry, was not nearly as strong as it should've been. Even with the formation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau -- headed for now by economist and middle-class advocate Elizabeth Warren -- the reform package could have been much stronger.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Though combat has officially ended in Iraq, troops are still stationed in that country -- while the Obama administration has doubled down on efforts in Afghanistan, even through a change in command and serious skepticism with regards to the mission. And don't even get me started on Libya ...</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Don't let the experts fool you; the recession is <i>not</i> over. Unemployment still hovers over nine percent. Homes are still being foreclosed upon, and while Wall Street continues to rake in billions in profits -- yes, even the firms that received bailout money -- hiring has been slow. many unemployed have exhausted their unemployment insurance and have stopped looking for work (partly because some jobs are explicitly <i>not</i> hiring the unemployed).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Through it all, President Obama and the Democrats have lost their majority in the House of Representatives -- thanks in part to the enthusiasm within the Tea Party movement -- and seen their majority in the Senate dwindle.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This is important in an era in which 60 is the majority needed to get anything done in the Senate, not 51.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">At times, the Democrats (President Obama included) have not fought hard enough for progressive principles -- for instance, the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts on the country's top two percent of earners. Some of that is mere perception, some of it is reality.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Progressives, largely, have a right to be angry. Hope and change have given way to stagnation and compromise. It was obvious from Day One that some compromise would be necessary; it's the name of the game when there are two political parties vying for control in Washington. But compromise has been a nasty affair, considering the Republican Party has chosen to obstruct and fear-monger at every opportunity -- even now that the party has a majority in one house of Congress.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It's hard to compromise with someone who is so overt in wanting you to fail. This is a large source of liberal anger -- which I understand. Why does President Obama keep compromising with people who want him to fail? In part because he has to, but in some instances, it appears that he doesn't even fight for his principles before compromising.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It might lead some to wonder if he even has any principles.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">If there's one thing the Republican Party is good at, it's mobilizing its base and using anger and fear to its advantage. It helps that the party has its own 24-hour cable news station to spout talking points and code words at all hours of the day. The Tea Party movement has also helped mobilize conservative anger.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">When Republican voters are angry or upset, they express it in a number of ways -- most importantly at the ballot box. When liberals are upset or angry, they tend to stay home.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Don't believe me? Look at Virginia's most recent gubernatorial election. Republican Bob McDonnell won convincingly, in part because he ran a solid, focused campaign ("Bob For Jobs"); however, he was aided by an unenthusiastic Democratic base. Creigh Deeds, the Democratic nominee, spent the entire campaign focusing on McDonnell's Regent thesis (even after voters showed they didn't care) and trying to move further to the center.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Democrats and independents, unimpressed, stayed home. Republicans came out in droves, like they always do. As a result, McDonnell is currently governor and Tea Party favorite Ken Cuccinelli is his Attorney General. Among Cuccinelli's "achievements" so far: telling the commonwealth's public universities they don't have the authority to protect homosexuals from discrimination; attacking University of Virginia scientists advocating for a response to climate change; and wasting taxpayer dollars on fighting the federal health care reform bill.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">All this because Democrats stayed home.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Why do you think Republicans took over the House last year? That "enthusiasm gap" the media kept talking about was a real, tangible thing. Republican voters came out in droves; independent voters were swayed to vote Republican; liberal voters, by and large, stayed home -- including many who voted for the first time in 2008.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">If you're angry or disappointed in the Obama administration, I understand and sympathize. But consider this: would you rather face a country led by President Mitt Romney? President Newt Gingrich? President Tim Pawlenty?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">President Sarah Palin?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Gods forbid, President <i>Donald Trump</i>?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Whatever President Obama hasn't accomplished in the first three years of this term, I can guarantee America would be worse off under the "leadership" of the above people. And don't sit there and think, "Oh, we'd never vote <i>that person</i> into office." Sharron Angle, with her "Second Amendment remedies," nearly became a U.S. Senator. Rand Paul -- you know, the guy who hates the Civil Rights Act -- <i>is</i> a U.S. Senator.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Don't just sit home because the Democrat in the race isn't a picture-perfect liberal. Don't sit home because you think the country's smart enough not to put Palin in the White House. If you sit home on Election Day -- if you don't get off your butt and make sure you do everything you can to get progressives into office in all levels of government, then fight to have legislation <i>you</i> want passed -- then the Republicans and the Tea Party deserve to win.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Do you want to fight Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), whose budget calls for the gutting of Social Security and the privatization of Medicare? Or do you want to sit back, fold your arms and pout because the entire liberal agenda hasn't yet been achieved?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I'm pissed off, too, guys. There are a lot of things I've fought for in the last three years that never happened -- or happened a lot later in the game than necessary. But the point is to <i>keep fighting</i>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The GOP isn't going to rest; why should we?</div>Jeff Cunninghamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08897186065184755894noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4256296969827384249.post-56294405638021571812011-04-20T07:20:00.000-07:002011-04-20T07:23:13.652-07:00Putting Trump in His Place<div style="text-align: justify;">Look, I've tried my best to ignore Donald Trump as a prominent political figure (hell, I've been trying to ignore Donald Trump <span style="font-style: italic;">period</span>). In a lot of ways, I take Sarah Palin more seriously, and we all know <a href="http://pulledleftandright.blogspot.com/2011/02/setting-some-ground-rules.html">how I feel about her</a>.<br /><br />But Joan Walsh of <span style="font-style: italic;">Slate</span> wrote an expert takedown of the Trump-for-President phenomenon on Tuesday, and I just had to share. Ladies and gentlemen, marvel in the sheer hypocrisy that is <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/donald_trump/index.html?story=%2Fopinion%2Fwalsh%2Fpolitics%2F2011%2F04%2F19%2Fthe_farce_that_is_donald_trump">Donald Trump, political wannabe</a>.<br /></div><br />You're welcome.Jeff Cunninghamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08897186065184755894noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4256296969827384249.post-44483029373538466162011-04-14T08:26:00.001-07:002011-04-14T08:27:00.604-07:00Bonds Trial a Sham, Waste of Government<div style="text-align: justify;">If you sat through Wednesday's news that disgraced slugger Barry Bonds was <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=6347014">convicted of obstruction of justic</a><a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=6347014">e</a> in the federal government's case against BALCO (which was also a symbolic trial of the entire Steroids Era in baseball) and wondered what the point of the whole thing was, you're not alone.<br /><br />Prosecutors couldn't get Bonds on perjury -- the jury deadlocked on all three charges against him. They only managed to get the obstruction of justice charge because jurors felt Bonds evaded questions during his grand jury testimony.<br /><br />By that logic ... shouldn't Dick Cheney be behind bars?<br /><br />So, with a potentially bogus obstruction of justice conviction -- which carries a maximum of sentence of 10 years in prison, even though Bonds is unlikely to face jail time -- and what's likely to be a length appeals process (oh, and the government can file the perjury charges again, if it so chooses), the question begs asking: what's the point?<br /><br />Dave Zirin, sports editor for <a href="www.thenation.com"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Nation</span></a> magazine, takes the whole thing to task in his recent column, <span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.thenation.com/blog/159935/great-american-witch-hunt-how-barry-bonds-became-convicted-felon"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Great American Witch-Hunt: How Barry Bonds Became a Convicted Felon</span></a>. A snippet:</span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span> </div><p style="text-align: justify;"><span></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> <blockquote> <p><span>As BALCO founder Victor Conte—who is no friend of Bonds<span style="text-decoration: underline;">—</span><a href="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/dailypitch/post/2011/04/barry-bonds-found-guilty-of-obstruction-of-justice/1?csp=34sports&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomSports-TopStories+%28Sports+-+Top+Stories%29">said to <i>USA Today</i></a></span><span><a href="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/dailypitch/post/2011/04/barry-bonds-found-guilty-of-obstruction-of-justice/1?csp=34sports&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomSports-TopStories+%28Sports+-+Top+Stories%29">, </a>"This verdict absolutely makes no sense to me. Of all of these counts, the one that makes the least sense to me is the obstruction charge.</span> <span>Tell me how there was obstruction of justice. This is all about the</span> <span>selected persecution of Barry Bonds. This is not fair. I was the heavy </span><span>in this. I accepted full responsibility and the consequences and went</span> <span>to prison. How is that obstruction? Doesn't make sense.”</span></p> <p><span>It doesn’t. After all the public money, drama, and hysterics, this is</span> <span>what we’re left with. He was “evasive." Keep in mind that we live in a</span> <span>country where the US Department of Justice has not pursued one person for</span> <span>the investment banking fraud that cratered the US economy in 2008. Not one</span> <span>indictment has been issued to a single Bush official on charges of ordering</span> <span>torture or lying to provoke an invasion of Iraq. Instead, we get farcical</span> <span>reality television like the US vs. Barry Bonds.</span><span><br /></span></p> <p><span>This was a trial where you longed for the somber dignity of a Judge Judy.</span> <span>Since Anderson wouldn’t talk, the government was left with two real</span> <span>witnesses: Kimberly Bell, Bond's mistress, brought in to discuss his</span> <span>sexual dysfunctions resulting from steroids, and Steve Hoskins, the</span> <span>business manager whom Bonds fired for alleged theft and fraud.</span> <span>But their real star was a once-anonymous IRS official named Jeff</span> <span>Novitsky, who has proudly seen Bonds as an all-consuming obsession,</span> <span>US Constitution be damned.</span></p> </blockquote> </div><p style="text-align: justify;"><span></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;"><span>Look, I'm no Bonds apologist. But doesn't anyone else find a bit strange that the majority of the government's focus in prosecuting steroid use in professional sports has largely focused in on him? Is it because he's the sport's all-time leading home run hitter? Someone who allegedly manufactured his numbers in a sport where numbers mean more than anything?</span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;"><span>Is it because Bonds was never friendly with the media? Is it because, heaven forbid, Bonds is black? Where's this level of outrage and condemnation for someone like Roger Clemens or Mark McGwire? The former is accused of taking steroids and lying about it; the latter has finally admitted he juiced.</span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;"><span>I know Clemens will have his day in court, but the outrage surrounding his case doesn't even come close to Bonds. But think about this ... if the federal government wants to get in the business of prosecuting steroids in baseball (which, as Zirin pointed out, President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder said they wouldn't do), why not focus more on the dealers who supplied the drugs?</span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;"><span>Why not focus on the owners and Major League Baseball officials who looked the other way as players bulked up, balls went flying out of ballparks and more money flowed in than anyone knew what to do with? They're just as culpable as the players in this, if not more so.</span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;">Frankly, the government has gibber fish to dry than a player who was a surefire Hall of Famer before greed and jealousy led him to take performance-enhancing drugs. While the federal government has been pouring in millions of dollars to prosecute Bonds, not one grand jury has convened to investigate the financial firms who led us into economic collapse.</p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;">Tank the economy, get a pass and a bailout. Take steroids to hit a baseball farther, and face potential jail time.</p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;">Doesn't that seem screwed up to anyone?</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-style: italic;">This post also appears on my sports blog, <a href="http://lastfourontheclock.blogspot.com">Last Four on the Clock</a>.</span><br /></p>Jeff Cunninghamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08897186065184755894noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4256296969827384249.post-17007138870968528922011-04-08T06:14:00.001-07:002011-04-08T06:28:05.741-07:00A Message For My Readers<div style="text-align: justify;">You may have noticed a decided lack of posts on this blog in recent weeks (okay, months); there's a good reason for that, and I want to ensure everyone that I haven't abandoned this blog -- or the idea of fighting for progressive values that are important to me.<br /><br />Ultimately, life has been beyond hectic recently.<br /><br />I work in sports information (i.e., athletic media relations) at <a href="www.hamptonpirates.com">Hampton University</a>, and this year, both the men's and women's basketball teams won their conference and advanced to the NCAA Tournament. As great as it was seeing these programs and these student-athletes succeeding and bringing notoriety to the school, it also meant a buttload of work.<br /><br />Between press releases, press conferences and a trip to Albuquerque, N.M. that lasted nearly a week, I've admittedly let some things fall by the wayside. I've posted to my <a href="http://lastfourontheclock.blogspot.com/">sports blog</a> occasionally, and I'm still trying to keep my <a href="http://stuckinthepits.blogspot.com/">NASCAR blog</a> up-to-date since we're a couple months into the season there, but this page has been a casualty of a busy life.<br /><br />I've also done a poor job of late keeping up with what's going on; I know the basics of the fight for collective bargaining rights in Wisconsin, just as I know Ohio and Michigan have attempted to pass similar union-busting measures. I'm aware of the pending government shutdown, which -- depending on who you talk to, is the fault of President Obama or the Tea Party.<br /><br />But, due in part of my lack of time, I haven't delved deep enough into the issues to truly get a grasp of them -- and if I don't truly grasp something, I'm not going to write a blog post about it. I don't wanna give an opinion that might be off-base or try to talk about something I don't really understand.<br /><br />I'm weird like that.<br /><br />Since <a href="http://pulledleftandright.blogspot.com/2011/01/olbermann-out-at-msnbc.html">Keith Olbermann left MSNBC</a>, I've effectively stopped watching. I tried to hang on enough to watch <a href="http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Rachel Maddow Show</span></a>, refusing to punish her for something she ultimately had no control over ... yet I've stopped watching her show. This wasn't a conscious decision, but with Olbermann off <a href="www.foknewschannel.com">doing his own thing</a>, it just hasn't been there for me.<br /><br />Which is a shame, because Maddow has the distinct ability to make me understand complex situations that I might not otherwise be able to grasp. I still frequent my usual media hangouts -- I still receive my issue of <a href="www.thenation.com"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Nation</span></a> every week, and I still visit <a href="www.huffingtonpost.com"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Huffington Post</span></a> whenever possible -- but this has suffered as well.<br /><br />I think, now that things are starting to calm down at work, I'll be returning to this page soon. I just need to re-charge the proverbial batteries, decompress a little. I am not abandoning this page or the struggle it represents; I'm merely taking a step back to make sure I have the energy and resolve for what will undoubtedly be a tough battle ahead.<br /><br />Take heart, fellow progressives. I'm not going anywhere ... I just need to re-fill the tank.<br /><br />I <span style="font-style: italic;">will</span> be back.<br /></div>Jeff Cunninghamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08897186065184755894noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4256296969827384249.post-4252448369857893852011-02-09T07:10:00.000-08:002011-02-10T06:36:48.274-08:00Setting Some Ground Rules<div style="text-align: justify;">There are some things that have gone on of late in the world of politics and media that really irks the hell out of me. They're not necessarily things that require their own post, but I figured I'd lump each item into one column and establish what I'd like to see as some ground rules going forward.<br /><br />So without further ado ...<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">If You Quit Political Office Without a Damn Good Reason, You Forfeit Your Relevance:</span> I find myself constantly perplexed and annoyed with the mainstream media's continuing fascination with Sarah Palin. Everything she says or does, no matter how asinine or irrelevant, gets seemingly endless play -- and I just don't get it.<br /><br />As much as I vehemently disagree with Palin's political views -- and as much as I detest her tendency to make every single thing that happens about her -- both of those are her right as an American citizen, and they make her no different than other prominent conservative figures in today's media and political landscape. But the other figures have one thing going for them Palin doesn't:<br /><br />They didn't quit on their people.<br /><br />Need I remind everyone that Palin was once the governor of Alaska, before she decided to bail on her constituents with two years left in her term? And for what? A gig on Fox News? Traveling the country to make speeches for outrageous appearance fees? An eight-episode reality show on <span style="font-style: italic;">The Learning Channel</span>?<br /><br />Palin didn't quit for personal reasons; she quit to make herself money. She can run for president if she wants in 2012, but her chances of actually winning office are the same as mine. No one, liberal, moderate or conservative, is going to put someone who walked away from her state in the White House.<br /><br />I can deal with the fact that Palin's politics differ so radically from mine; I cannot, however, accept the fact that she's a quitter. She forfeited her relevance when she walked out on Alaskans, and it's about time everyone ignored her.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">You Cannot Call Yourself the Pro-Life Party if You Introduce Legislation That Would Kill People:</span> Elected Republicans today like to call themselves pro-life, champions of unborn fetuses everywhere. In one breath, these elected officials scream about the virtues of small government and keeping government out of people's lives. But the second a woman gets pregnant, they want that small government to become quite large.<br /><br />As if that weren't hypocritical enough, Republicans in Congress -- having failed to <a href="http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/republican-plan-redefine-rape-abortion">redefine "rape"</a> -- have introduced a bill that would allow expectant mothers to die rather than perform a potentially life-saving abortion. The bill, ironically called the "Protect Life Act," would allow hospitals that receive federal funding and oppose abortions to deny a woman the procedure -- even if that procedure would save her life.<br /><br />The GOP will claim the bill is only designed to ensure that federal funds won't go toward abortions -- which is already the case. But it goes much further than that; am I the only one who sees the intellectual dishonesty in calling yourself "pro-life" and then proposing legislation that would effectively give hospitals permission to let women die?<br /><br />Yeah, pro-life ... until you're born, then I guess you're on your own.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">If You Call Yourself a Champion of Small Government, You Have to Vote as Such:</span> I disagree vehemently with almost everything the Tea Party stands for, and in a lot of ways, I cringe at the thought of them in Congress. But several Congressmen who associate with the Tea Party <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/08/house-rejects-extensions-patriot-act_n_820554.html">helped defeat an extension</a> of three Patriot Act provisions on Tuesday, joining the Democrats in opposition.<br /><br />The bill, which needed a two-thirds majority under special rules to pass, fell 277-148. Democrats have long argued against the Patriot Act by calling it an unconstitutional assault on civil liberties, so for them to vote against extension was little surprise. But For 26 Republicans -- including several Tea Party identifiers -- to join in the opposition is worth note.<br /><br />The Tea Party identifies itself as a group of small-government conservatives. How small that government's supposed to be really depends on which Tea Party group you're discussing, but the umbrella notion is that of small government.<br /><br />The Patriot Act, in a lot of ways, is the antithesis of small government.<br /><br />The Tea Party Republicans who voted against this extension deserve credit, not just because I agree with their vote, but because they stuck to their small-government principles and let their votes match their rhetoric. The issue's not dead -- the Senate has until the end of the month to take up the issue -- but on Tuesday, at least, act reflected word.<br /><br />We need more of that in Washington.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">If You Championed an Idea, You Can't Call it Unconstitutional When the Other Side Endorses It:</span> Remember when President Clinton tried to pass health care reform back in 1994? One of the ideas that Republicans floated out there, and managed to get included in the bill, was an individual health insurance mandate -- requiring every American to buy health insurance.<br /><br />Fast-forward to 2009; President Obama and the Democrats were again trying to pass health care reform, and one of the centerpieces of that package was ... an individual mandate. The argument went that by requiring everyone to buy insurance, people wouldn't wait until they got sick to buy coverage and insurance companies would reduce premiums.<br /><br />It's an argument that makes sense, even if you don't agree with it.<br /><br />But out come the Republicans -- Congressmen, state Attorneys General and judges alike -- calling the individual mandate (and health care reform at large) unconstitutional. States sued to exempt themselves from the law, arguing the Constitution did not allow the federal government to require citizens to purchase a product.<br /><br />Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who championed the individual mandate in 1994, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/01/chuck-grassley-individual-mandate_n_817052.html">also called the idea unconstitutional</a>. Did he really have a change of heart in the last 15 years? Somehow, I doubt it; to me, this is more a case of the GOP trying to placate its base once President Obama accepted the individual mandate and began arguing in its favor.<br /><br />You can argue whether or not the individual mandate is a good idea -- I don't think it is -- but if you're on record, as a person or a political party, in favor of the measure, then you forfeit the right to call it unconstitutional later -- <span style="font-style: italic;">especially</span> when you're the party who's always waving the Constitution in everyone's face.<br /><br />Which brings me to the last one ...<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">You Cannot Claim to Worship the Constitution, then Pick and Choose the Parts You Like:</span> Today's Republican Party -- both establishment GOP and Tea Party members -- love to flaunt the Constitution, using it as the basis for nearly every position. They cite the Constitution in fighting gun control, opposing health care reform ... even going so far as to invoke states' rights.<br /><br />Which is fine; the GOP is well within its rights to paint itself as the party that protects the Constitution. But if you do, you have to protect the entire document, not just the parts you like. You cannot scream about how Democrats are assaulting the Constitution, then turn around and talk of <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40855.html">getting rid of the 14th Amendment</a>.<br /><br />Or <a href="http://washingtonindependent.com/80129/gop-rep-voters-shouldnt-be-able-to-elect-senators">the 17th Amendment</a> -- you know, the one that lets the people directly elect their Senators.<br /><br />The Constitution is not something you can pick and choose from ... you either defend the entire document you claim to champion, or you don't. It's intellectually dishonest -- at best -- to wrap your arms around the document and profess your undying love for it ... only to turn around and ask for part of it to be removed.<br /><br />That would be like talking about how perfect your girlfriend is ... only to tell her you want the birthmark on her cheek removed. Or asking her to get breast implants. If she's so perfect, why ask her to change?<br /></div>Jeff Cunninghamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08897186065184755894noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4256296969827384249.post-88315886207525720172011-02-08T08:56:00.000-08:002011-02-08T09:15:04.659-08:00Olbermann Gets Current<div style="text-align: justify;">Recently ousted MSNBC host Keith Olbermann <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/08/keith-olbermann-new-showcurrent-tv-news-officer_n_820198.html">announced on Tuesday</a> that he will joining Current TV in the late spring. Olbermann will host and executive-produce a one-hour, five-night-a-week primetime show on the network.<br /><br />He will also become Current's "chief news officer."<br /><br />The move is quite a get for Current TV, a station co-founded and chaired by former Vice President Al Gore. Sadly, there's the issue of Current's reach; as of this writing, my cable provider (Cox) does not offer the station.<br /><br />To find out if you have Current TV, visit the network's <a href="http://current.com/">website</a>.<br /><br />The move comes on the heels of Monday's <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/huffington-post-aol_b_819373.html">announced deal</a> in which AOL purchased <span style="font-style: italic;">The Huffington Post</span> for $315 million and named founder Arianna Huffington president and editor-in-chief of the newly-created Huffington Post Media Group -- in which she will take control of all of AOL's editorial content.<br /><br />I'm not sure how I feel about the AOL-HuffPost merger, since the consolidation of the mainstream media today is actually a pretty big problem (right, Comcast-NBC Universal?), but I'm willing to give Huffington and her website the benefit of the doubt.<br /><br />But Olbermann's move to Current TV could be huge -- not so much for Olbermann (who is still being paid the balance of his four-year, $30 million contract with MSNBC), but for Current. Olbermann has become one of the most reliable and trustworthy voices on the left -- not that being on the left got Olbermann this gig -- and it's nice to see that he'll be back.<br /><br />Particulars will likely be worked out over the next month or so -- namely, whether or not Olbermann's new show will be available online, much like <span style="font-style: italic;">Countdown</span> was. Given Current's limited reach as far as cable and satellite providers are concerned, that would probably be a great way to expand Olbermann's audience.<br /><br />Particularly us <span style="font-style: italic;">Countdown</span> fans who don't get Current TV. But who knows? Maybe the inclusion of Olbermann will give Current the interest level necessary to get other providers to pick up the network.<br /><br />Olbermann will be the same as he always has been -- bombastic, witty, sarcastic, hard-hitting -- and he might just have the clout to bring Current to another level ... and make the 24-hour cable stations even more irrelevant than they've already become.<br /><br />One can only hope.<br /></div>Jeff Cunninghamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08897186065184755894noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4256296969827384249.post-4858115290114864952011-01-22T10:01:00.001-08:002011-01-22T10:25:46.563-08:00Olbermann Out at MSNBC<div style="text-align: justify;">In a move that shocked some, but not others, Keith Olbermann announced on his MSNBC show <span style="font-style: italic;">Countdown with Keith Olbermann</span> on Friday that he was leaving the network and his show was ending. He offered no reason, other than to say that he was informed late in the week that Friday was his last night.<br /><br />The network claimed the move had nothing to do with NBC Universal's recent acquisition by Comcast (a corporation with well-known right wing ties) -- which is suspicious because the denial was issued before anyone officially asked the question.<br /><br />A side effect of media consolidation is the homogenization of voices. The fewer media entities in existence, the less diverse the viewpoints being expressed.<br /><br />I stumbled across <span style="font-style: italic;">Countdown</span> one night by accident; I was initially confused when I saw Olbermann talking about the war in Iraq. Growing up, I'd seen Olbermann co-hosting <span style="font-style: italic;">SportsCenter</span> on ESPN with his friend Dan Patrick. I knew Olbermann to be a goofy sort who loved baseball, but I never thought he'd find a career in politics.<br /><br />But there he was, verbally ripping the Bush administration a new one over its lies and propaganda. I wasn't nearly as liberal back then as I am now, and I had no idea Olbermann was, either. But even then, I saw the visceral anger -- I could feel his disdain for what he thought was the abandonment of American principles.<br /><br />Even if I didn't agree with him that night, his steadfastness stuck with me.<br /><br />As I became more engrossed in politics in the lead-up to the 2008 presidential election, Olbermann -- and MSNBC as a whole -- became my network of choice. Even then, I saw Fox News for what it was and wanted nothing to do with it, and CNN was simply too milquetoast for me (I find it's self-proclaimed centrist nature with relation to the other two networks pathetically laughable).<br /><br />Olbermann introduced me to several media figures who I trust to this day, including Rachel Maddow, Ezra Klein and Eugene Robinson of <span style="font-style: italic;">The Washington Post</span>, Chris Hayes of <span style="font-style: italic;">The Nation, </span>Lawrence O'Donnell and Arianna Huffington, among others.<br /><br />Sadly, he never converted me to Chris Mathews.<br /><br />Before long, <span style="font-style: italic;">Countdown</span> became nightly viewing, even though it meant missing my share of basketball games and what few hourly dramas I enjoyed (sorry, <span style="font-style: italic;">Bones</span>). Eventually, I watched <span style="font-style: italic;">Countdown</span> and then <span style="font-style: italic;">The Rachel Maddow Show</span> and, for a short time, <span style="font-style: italic;">The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell</span>. Anyone who follows this blog knows how much I love these shows -- not just because the hosts are liberal, but because they cut through the right wing noise and support their assertions with facts.<br /><br />And yes, Olbermann can be funny. Not Jon Stewart funny, but he held his own.<br /><br />Insiders suggest Olbermann's ouster is a result of his defiant attitude following his suspension back in November -- but if that's the case, why wait until now to fire him? Why not just toss him to the curb in November? I think it has more to do with the Comcast merger, and I think none of MSNBC's other liberal hosts should feel too comfortable.<br /><br />Olbermann was by far the network's ratings winner -- he had the highest-rated cable news show not on Fox News. If he could be unceremoniously tossed, how long do we have to wait before the other liberal voices are shown the door?<br /><br />For almost eight years, whether he meant to or not, Olbermann was a reliable voice on the left. He was the first to stand up against the war in Iraq and the first to hold the Bush administration accountable for its lies and its alleged war crimes. He was passionate and instrumental in setting up the liberal narrative for health care reform, and even though he was an ardent supporter of President Obama, Olbermann was by no means a cheerleader.<br /><br />His Special Comments were always must-see programming -- I've posted quite a few of them on this page. Even when he was over-the-top, even when he resorted to the same name-calling that the right wing calls home, Olbermann's heart was always in the right place.<br /><br />I hope Olbermann finds a new home soon; we need voices like him in the media. The right wing always pointed to him as an example of the so-called liberal media, when in fact his voice from the left was one of few.<br /><br />We need that voice, and damn MSNBC and Comcast for silencing it.<br /></div>Jeff Cunninghamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08897186065184755894noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4256296969827384249.post-37485730810299938112011-01-13T07:56:00.000-08:002011-01-13T08:07:32.511-08:00President Obama's Speech in Tucson<div style="text-align: justify;">President Barack Obama delivered a 33-minute speech Wednesday night toward the end of the memorial service in Tucson, Ariz. for the victims of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09giffords.html?_r=1">Saturday's shooting</a> that left six dead and 14 injured, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.<br /><br />In many ways, President Obama's speech was to strike a tone similar to the one President Ronald Reagan gave <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEjXjfxoNXM">after the Challenger disaster</a>, or the speech President Bill Clinton delivered <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DgXx_evi6Q">after the Oklahoma City bombing</a>.<br /><br />The speech was a success, rousing and emotional. The president called for us to be more civil and respectful of one another, and though the cynic in me doubts that will happen (I don't see the right wing media machine -- which I do not believe accurately represents many of this country's Republicans -- allowing it), it's a laudable and emotional message.<br /><br />It's a message that needs to be repeated often. Video of the speech, in its entirety, is below.<br /><br /><br /><object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc23f10e" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640"><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=41048443&width=420&height=245"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed name="msnbc23f10e" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" flashvars="launch=41048443&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p><br /></div>Jeff Cunninghamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08897186065184755894noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4256296969827384249.post-55139531779796280892011-01-10T11:30:00.001-08:002011-01-13T07:55:33.252-08:00Stop. Just ... Stop.<div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="text-align: justify;">I know it's been a while since I've written on this space -- and that a lot has happened that I could've covered -- but between the holiday and an uptick in activity at work, a lot of things have fallen by the wayside ... this blog included.<br /></div><br />But after the horrific events of Saturday, in which Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and several others <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09giffords.html">were shot</a> outside a supermarket in Tuscon, Ariz. -- an event that left Rep. Giffords in surgery for hours, a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl killed -- now seemed like as good a time as any to pause and offer insight.<br /><br />You won't find anything particularly revelatory in this post, nor will you find me calling everyone on the right wing every name in the book -- that's been done by virtually everyone else in the blogosphere and anyone in the mainstream media who tacks the slightest left of center. I do wish more voices on the right would join the chorus calling for the proverbial cease-fire -- to my knowledge, only one GOP Senator has made <a href="http://www.wopular.com/gop-senator-rhetoric-needs-be-toned-down-after-giffords-shooting">such a call</a> -- but I'm not surprised that we haven't seen one.<br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">I'm not here to take Sarah Palin to task for <a href="http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/sarahpac_0.jpg">her poster</a> during the midterm campaigns where she placed crosshairs over what she thought to be vulnerable districts for Democrats -- including Rep. Giffords -- because frankly, that speaks for itself. I'm not here to rail against Fox News for its rhetoric designed to mislead and frighten its audience with relation to the Obama administration and Democrats as a whole. That point has been made ad nauseum, and will continue to be made as long as there is a Fox News.<br /><br />There were the "<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/16/sharron-angle-floated-2nd_n_614003.html">Second Amendment remedies</a>" that Sharron Angle referred to in her Nevada Senate race against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- the idea that if one didn't get their way at the ballot box, it was okay to turn to guns, because that was what the Founding Fathers intended.<br /><br />Never mind that bugaboo about majority rule.<br /><br />At this point, all we know about the alleged shooter was that he was anti-government -- the media narrative will automatically try to pigeon-hole him (if it hasn't already) into the Tea Party movement. I've heard media reports theoretically tying the shooter to Jesse Kelly, Rep. Giffords' opponent from the most recent election who held a campaign rally and <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/jesse-kelly-giffords-m16-event.jpg">encouraged supporters</a> to bring their guns.<br /><br />Tempting as it is for me to do the same -- a side effect of my partisan leanings -- I'm trying not to automatically lump the shooter in with the ultra-conservative, corporate-backed Tea Party movement that fueled Republican gains in last November's elections.<br /><br />The only thing I know for certain is that words have consequences. Whether we mean for our words to do actual damage is largely irrelevant; though we may have the Constitutional right to say whatever we please, we also have responsibility for how those words are received. Relay an inflammatory and violent message long enough, you become at least partially responsible for it when a less-than-stable individual acts out in a violent manner.<br /><br />Take Bill O'Reilly. The Fox News host is adamantly pro-life -- which is fine. It's a free country, and he's entitled to that opinion, just as I'm entitled to be pro-choice. But when O'Reilly goes on his highly-rated cable show and proceeds to call Dr. George Tiller "<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/01/oreilly-called-tiller-a-b_n_209653.html">Tiller the Baby Killer</a>" on several occasions and show such obvious personal disgust for a doctor who is providing a women a perfectly legal medical procedure, don't you think he bears some responsibility over the fact that Scott Roeder walked into a church in which Dr. Tiller was attending and killed him?<br /><br />I'm not saying charge O'Reilly with murder, but last I checked, there was this thing called incitement. I'm not a law expert by any means, but I remember the term incitement being the one instance where the courts did not have to apply First Amendment protections. Basically, if you said something that led a person to commit a violent act, you were held responsible for that.<br /><br />But the 1969 Supreme Court case <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio"><span style="font-style: italic;">Brandenburg v. Ohio</span></a> makes the subject of incitement a little more complex; the Court ruled that inflammatory speech cannot be punished unless the speech in question is intended to incite and will lead to "imminent lawless action."<br /><br />If that sounds like a ruling that leaves the door open to plausible deniability, you're probably right. If you can't prove a person intended for their words to bring about violent or lawless behavior, then their First Amendment rights are protected.<br /><br />Short of recordings of Palin discussing the idea for her crosshairs poster or leaked video of a production meeting for <span style="font-style: italic;">The O'Reilly Factor</span>, how do we <span style="font-style: italic;">prove</span> they intended to have their words leads to the lawless actions of the less stable among us?<br /><br />Not <span style="font-style: italic;">think</span> they wanted that to happen. <span style="font-style: italic;">Prove it.</span><br /><br />Fox News is never going to admit publicly that it means to incite violence with its rhetoric; when Glenn Beck hosts a segment on his show in which <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/06/glenn-beck-jokes-about-pu_n_253448.html">he poisons former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in effigy</a>, he'll simply explain it away as a light-hearted moment in his circus of a show, that no one should make anything of it.<br /><br />Unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that's not the case, Beck gets away with it.<br /><br />The long and short of it, the responsibility rests on all of us to make sure our personal and political discourse never deteriorates to the point where we're encouraging violence against others. We are all human beings, and we are all Americans; it's senseless to incite violence and hatred against each other over political debates. Bringing guns to political rallies does not further our democratic process; it damages it.<br /><br />Democracy may not be a spectator sport, but it shouldn't be a contact sport, either. Everyone -- from our mainstream media to our own selves -- need to do a better job of making sure our language is civil. We can still get our respective points across without calling for each others' heads.<br /><br />Can't we?<br /></div>Jeff Cunninghamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08897186065184755894noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4256296969827384249.post-62706376898536646502010-12-07T20:35:00.000-08:002010-12-07T20:56:31.890-08:00More on Tax Cuts<div style="text-align: justify;">Lots of Keith Olbermann on the blog tonight, with three video segments from his MSNBC show <span style="font-style: italic;">Countdown</span>. The first is a special report from Monday night's show, in which guest host Sam Seder examines just where the money America borrows to pay for these tax cuts comes from. Borrowing money from foreign countries -- possibly even nations unfriendly to us -- just so the wealthy can have their precious tax cuts.<br /><br />And the government doesn't say shit about it.<br /><br /><object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc872d81" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640"><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=40540298&width=420&height=245"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed name="msnbc872d81" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" flashvars="launch=40540298&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p><br /><br />The second video is an interview Olbermann did Tuesday night with my Congressman, Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va. 3rd). As far back as I can recall, this is the first time Rep. Scott has been interviewed on a national stage, and he continued his argument against extending <span style="font-style: italic;">any</span> of the Bush-era tax rates; as unpopular as that move would be, its effect in shrinking the deficit cannot be argued.<br /><br /><object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc7f97f8" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640"><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=40559205&width=420&height=245"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed name="msnbc7f97f8" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" flashvars="launch=40559205&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p><br /><br />The last video is a Special Comment from Olbermann, in which he takes the Obama administration to task not just for the compromise deal, but also with President Obama's condescending and angry <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/obama-tax-cut-deal_n_793320.html">response</a> on Tuesday to liberal criticism. Decorum prevents me from truly revealing how I feel about the comments -- nothing like pissing off your base by telling them, essentially, to sit down and shut up -- so I'll let Olbermann articulate the anger for me.<br /><br /><object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc85c845" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640"><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=40559453&width=420&height=245"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed name="msnbc85c845" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" flashvars="launch=40559453&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p><br /></div>Jeff Cunninghamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08897186065184755894noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4256296969827384249.post-27506577971162621292010-12-07T06:40:00.000-08:002010-12-07T07:09:03.309-08:00Tax Cuts Deal: Compromise or Caving?<div style="text-align: justify;">With Monday's <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/06/obama-tax-cut-compromise_n_792776.html">news</a> that President Obama had reached a deal with Congressional Republicans that would temporarily extend the Bush-era tax rates, while also providing 13 more months of unemployment insurance and a few other benefits, much hand-wringing has occurred.<br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">After all, letting the tax rates on the highest earners -- those who make more than $250,000 a year -- expire at the end of 2010 was one of President Obama's most popular campaign promises. It also had the side effect of lopping $700 billion off the deficit over the next 10 years; for all the talk in Washington over the deficit, letting the tax cuts expire -- at least on the wealthy -- was a pretty damn good way to start tackling the issue.<br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">But Republicans, who are always quick to harp on the deficit (just ask those whose unemployment insurance ran out), didn't seem to care about that $700 billion. Apparently, we don't need to pay for tax cuts for the rich, but we <span style="font-style: italic;">do</span> need to pay for helping keep unemployed people relatively afloat in a bad economy where jobs are scarce.<br /><br />The GOP has two functions today: a) help the rich as much as possible, and b) make sure President Obama doesn't win <span style="font-style: italic;">anything</span>. This deal, which some are calling a "compromise," accomplishes both goals.<br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">There were those -- like Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va. 3rd) -- who advocated for the expiration of all the Bush-era tax rates, which came with a $4 trillion price tag over the next decade. While that's true, and would certainly help the deficit ... that large an increase in taxes with the economy still in shambles would've been a political nightmare.<br /><br />But letting the middle-class rates stay while raising the rates on the highest earners? That was a public opinion winner. But aside from a vote last week in the House on the issue, the whole thing was never really given much life -- because the GOP -- aided by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker-to-Be John Boehner decided they'd rather force their hand upon a president who seems none too willing to fight.<br /><br />Look at the <a href="http://www.discourse.net/images/old/taxcut2010.gif">tax rate differences</a> between the parties. See how massive that bottom circle would be under the Republican idea? Notice how all the rest of the tax rates look almost identical, but then the highest earners get the biggest cut? That's the tax world we've been living in since 2001 and 2003, and if this deal goes through, this is the reality that will continue.<br /><br />Those tax cuts for the wealthy didn't create jobs over the last decade, and they won't create jobs now. The rich don't spend the extra money they get in tax cuts like middle class workers do; they sit on it and save it, which does nothing to boost the economy.<br /><br />Also ... while the deal says the tax rates will expire again in two years, does anyone really expect that? Are we really supposed to believe President Obama will just let the tax rates revert back to Clinton-era levels while we're in the middle of the 2012 presidential campaign? He didn't want that fight now, with no election in sight and with the Democrats still in control of Congress; what makes you think he'll want that fight on the campaign trail with Republicans in control of the House of Representatives?<br /><br />Tax cuts for the wealthy that aren't paid for, to go along with wars that aren't paid for. More money borrowed from China and who knows what other countries. President Obama had a chance to make good on one of his central campaign promises <span style="font-style: italic;">and</span> work on the deficit at the same time, yet he punted on third down.<br /><br />Compromise happens; more often than not, it's the name of the game in D.C. I get that. I'm also glad the unemployment insurance was extended for another 13 months, and the payroll tax credit will put more money in people's pockets immediately.<br /><br />But the president waved the white flag and conceded before the fight even began. It's one thing to wage a fight and lose; sometimes that happens. But to not even force the issue, to start conceding before you even step into the ring?<br /><br />This is not the fierce advocate who inspired so many on the campaign trail. This is not the man who seemed so vigorous in defending the middle class and making sure the American dream was still reachable. President Obama gave up far too soon and abandoned a core principle, which is perhaps the most unsettling part of all this.<br /><br />Because as disenfranchised as liberals were in last month's elections -- between a bad economy and legislation that probably didn't go far enough -- imagine the disdain and the outrage now. Where do liberals go from here, and for that matter, where does President Obama go from here?<br /><br />I have no idea, but if this is any indication, the next two years are going to be really long.<br /></div>Jeff Cunninghamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08897186065184755894noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4256296969827384249.post-53527206011855547442010-11-17T17:37:00.000-08:002010-11-17T17:50:11.068-08:00Boy, We Dodged One ...<div style="text-align: justify;">There's been a lot of hand-wringing over the past year, year and a half over the relative effectiveness -- or lack thereof -- of the Obama administration.<br /><br />Conservatives, aided by the corporate-funded Tea Party movement and Fox News, claims President Obama is a socialist foreigner who's out to destroy America. Liberals felt the administration and its congressional majorities didn't go far enough in landmark legislation such as health care reform, Wall Street reform and the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."<br /><br />I'll admit, this page has participated in its fair share of the latter.<br /><br />Independents and other voters who cannot be easily defined along partisan or ideological boundaries have developed an overall sense of disappointment with regards to the slow economic recovery and the persistent unemployment rate -- a phenomenon that always favors the party in the minority at the time.<br /><br />But let's ... take a step backward for a moment and consider an alternate reality: specifically, one in which Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) was elected in 2008. I'm not even talking about the horrifying reality of Sarah Palin as Vice President (which could be its own separate blog post ... or book).<br /><br />I mean Sen. McCain specifically.<br /><br />In that vein, I offer this video clip from Monday night's edition of<span style="font-style: italic;"> The Rachel Maddow Show</span>. When watching this takedown of Sen. McCain's hypocrisy and the media's fascination with him, keep in mind ... some people wanted this man to be president!<br /><br /><object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc8ddddb" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640"><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=40205556&width=420&height=245"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed name="msnbc8ddddb" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" flashvars="launch=40205556&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p><br /></div>Jeff Cunninghamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08897186065184755894noreply@blogger.com0