Monday, December 27, 2010

Ending the Year on a High Note

After the election on November 2nd, I was understandably pessimistic about what progress, if any, would be made during the lame duck session of Congress before the new crop of elected Congresspeople and Senators take office. The Republicans made clear their priorities when they promised to block any legislation until all of the Bush tax cuts were extended. In other words, the top priority for the Republicans was to ensure that wealthiest Americans would not see the marginal tax rate for amounts made over $250,000 (for families) increased approximately 4%. (Please note that any amounts earned under that $250,000 would be taxed at the lower tax rates that would be extended for everyone, so the wealthy would have gotten a tax break no matter what.) Nuclear arms treaty with Russia? Health care for the heroes who were the first responders on September 11th? Tax breaks for those making under $250,000? Nope, not as important.

So, then came the big tax compromise. Liberals gnashed their teeth and whined and moaned about President Obama being weak and giving in to the Republicans. It turned into a circular firing squad with liberal radio talk show hosts like Randi Rhodes and Stephanie Miller being criticized by others for their pragmatism and support of the compromise the President had made. Just like health care reform and the slow progress on Don't Ask Don't Tell, the liberals were furious and disappointed but misdirected this anger at President Obama rather than the Republicans who presented a united front and blocked and obstructed what the President wanted to do.

Things were looking pretty bleak for Democrats at this point. Then, however, we started to see a string of victories. The START nuclear treaty with Russia was approved by the Senate. The repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell first passed in the House of Representatives and then the Senate. Jon Stewart aired a brilliant episode dedicated to the 9/11 First Responders bill, shedding light on the hypocrisy of the Republicans and the complicity of the media in ignoring the story. The Republicans caved and the bill passed. Other less publicized legislation also passed, including new food safety regulations and the Child Nutrition Act. Yes, there were still some disappointments, biggest of all the success of Republicans in blocking the DREAM Act, but overall, it was an amazing set of victories for the President and more importantly, for the country.

My pure speculation is that there are two reasons it was such a successful lame duck session for President Obama. First, I think there was more to the tax compromise than we were told. I think it was broader than just the tax cuts, and President Obama was tougher in these negotiations than it first appeared. Second, I think the Republicans may have started to hear backlash from voters. Their glee after the election was due to the mistaken notion that they were victorious because the people agreed with them philosophically. I think the election results were more a result of anger at the status quo and the anti-incumbent sentiment. In reality, the majority of Americans agree with Democrats more often than Republicans on the issues. For example, the majority of Americans did not support extending the tax cuts for the wealthy. And I am sure the vast majority of Americans support taking care of the 9/11 heroes. It is now becoming clear what the Republicans stand for, and I think they are hearing that people don't like it.

So, the year ended on a high note. I would like to point out, however, that the entire 111th session of Congress was amazing. For all of those who declare that nothing happened, that President Obama hasn't accomplished anything and that you are disappointed in him, please check out this summary of the 111th Congress from outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi's website. It is a truly impressive list. If you think back to the terrible shape the country was in when President Bush left office, in the midst of a severe recession and on the precipice of a depression, it is abundantly clear that this President and this Congress saved this country and accomplished a hell of a lot. I would like to thank President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for their tireless work the last two years.

The next two years will be extremely challenging, The right has the better messaging and a powerful media machine. Let's not waste any time arguing amongst ourselves. We progressives must push forward and lend our full and complete support to the President to help him combat the Republicans and their obstructionism.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Disgusting Moments from the Bush Presidency - None Involving Kanye West

So apparently, George W. Bush thinks that one of the most disgusting moment of his presidency was when Kanye West called him a racist. Really? Are you kidding me? Here is a short list of way more disgusting moments of the nightmare of an eight years spent under Bush:

Hurricane Katrina
Stories of conditions at the Superdome and images of the devastation are still seared in my memory.

September 11, 2001
The worst terrorist attack on our soil took place under George Bush's watch. How about the images of people who jumped to their death from the World Trade Center rather than face the fiery destruction? How about seeing people holding photos of their loved one, hoping to find out what happened to them? How about the sight of the Twin Towers crumbling to dust? What the terrorists did to us on that day was devastating and disgusting.

Abu Ghraib
Disgusting is the perfect word to describe what was going on in this Iraqi prison, where our soldiers were torturing and humiliating Iraqi prisoners. It was embarrassment to this country, tarnished our reputation, and endangered us even more as jihadists leveraged the photos as a perfect recruiting tool.

Wall Street greed
The unfettered greed and accumulation of wealth that took place under the Bush presidency and ultimately led to the financial collapse of 2008 and the need to pour billions and billions of taxpayer money into the banks to stabilize the markets and prevent another Great Depression was indeed disgusting. The fact that these bankers continued to make literally billions of dollars in bonuses following the bailout? Reprehensible.

The Unjustified Iraqi War
Let's not forget that the Bush Administration lied in order to lead this country into war against Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and did not have any weapons of mass destruction. This war has resulted in over 4,000 U.S. deaths and 30,000 U.S. injuries. The number of Iraqi civilian casualties is a disputed figure that ranges from the thousands to over a million, but it definitely dwarfs the number people who died on 9/11.

The Outing of Valerie Plame
For Dick Cheney and Co to actually put politics above the safety of a CIA agent and the success of her work is absolutely disgusting.

America as Torturers
The fact that America began using waterboarding, a technique of torture that we executed Japanese soldiers for, is abhorrent. This authorization of torture came all the way from the top, as we now know from Bush's book and his talk show rounds. We lost the moral high ground under Bush and Cheney.

Yes, George, there were a quite a number of disgusting moments in your presidency. The fact that a celebrity went on TV -- after seeing horrifying image after image of his fellow African-Americans in a great American city being left to fend for themselves for days on end after a natural disaster -- and said something mean about you? That's not one of them.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Election 2010: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

The midterm elections of 2010 are for the most part over. There are a few races still outstanding, most notably the Senate race in Alaska. Here are the good, the bad and the ugly of the election results.

The Good

  • California. I love California. We stood as a beacon of hope in this sea of misery. Jerry Brown won. Carly Fiorina lost. We voted against rolling back our progressive global warming legislation. Thank you, California. I am proud to be a Californian today. And don't take that to mean I wasn't proud to be a Californian before, OK? I have always been proud to be a Californian. And I am always proud to be an American. OK, moving on.
  • Several teabaggers lost, including Sharron "some of you look a little more Asian to me" Angle, Christine "I Am Not a Witch" O'Donnell, and Carl "Let's Teach the Poor Personal Hygiene" Paladino.
  • The Democrats retained the Senate with some key wins in Colorado, Nevada, and West Virginia.
The Bad
  • Some teabaggers did win, most notably Marco Rubio in Florida and Rand Paul in Kentucky.
The Ugly
  • The Republicans took back the House or Representatives, raising the prospect of a gridlocked government for the next two years.
  • Also ugly is the fact that the media is falling all over itself to proclaim the influence of the Tea Party when in reality, only a small percentage of the House and Senate will actually be teabaggers. Yes, the election reflects an angry, disappointed electorate. However, the anger and disappointment have been mistakenly channeled at the Democrats, because they have had the House, the Senate and the White House. The Republican strategy was to block progress at the expense of this country and then blame the President when things didn't get a lot better. Unfortunately, it worked. The American people have basically voted against their own self-interest by giving power to the party that wants to get rid of Social Security, Medicare and public education.
So now, we will see what the Republicans actually want to do for this country. If repealing health care reform, privatizing social security, and giving tax cuts to the wealthy are at the top of their agenda, they may face the same fate as today's Democrats in two years.

Sunday, October 31, 2010

How I'm Voting on November 2nd

It's down to the wire now. Election Day is Tuesday, and we will find out if the reports of the Democratic Party's demise were premature or prescient. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Like any party in power during hard economic times, the Democrats will suffer some losses due to the short memory of the electorate. Somehow, the fact that the recession was brought about because of Republican policies has been forgotten in all of the noise. However, I don't believe it will be the bloodbath we have been hearing about for the last three months. We shall soon find out! Here is how I'm voting in some key races in California on Tuesday and why.

Governor: Jerry Brown
As the San Jose Mercury put it this morning, "...nothing is more important than electing [Jerry] Brown, because state government is the root of so many local problems...We need a political grown-up who speaks his mind, actually knows something and can broker a deal -- a nearly lost art in Sacramento." I reject the notion that a successful businessperson can come in and run the state. It's a completely different animal. What we need is an experienced politician who has dedicated his life to public service. 

Senator: Barbara Boxer
Again, I am not impressed by wealthy businesspeople entering politics. Carly Fiorina is campaigning as an ultra-right winger, endorsed by none other than Sarah Palin. Need I say more? Well, I will. Barbara Boxer is often portrayed as an extreme liberal, but in reality, Senator Boxer is more balanced. She is a friend to Silicon Valley business, supporting important issues such as R&D tax credits to encourage innovation, cash repatriation to allow companies to bring overseas profits back to the United States for investment here, and opposing efforts to impose a tax on the internet. She also is a tireless advocate for women's rights.

Lieutenant Governor: Gavin Newsom
He had me at hello and his courageous advocacy for gay marriage.

United States Representative: Zoe Lofgren
The fact that she brought Stephen Colbert to Congress only makes me love her more!

Proposition 19: Undecided
It is very unusual for me to be undecided about anything on election day, but I really don't know how I am going to vote on this one. As a mother, I want to vote "No" to ensure that we don't send a message to our children that drugs are OK. As a rational person, I totally understand the arguments for voting "Yes". Marijuana is not as dangerous as alcohol or cigarettes. Criminalization only contributes to illegal activities such as gangs dealing drugs and the unspeakable violence in Mexico. Prisons are overcrowded and disproportionately with drug offenders. Legalizing could bring in much-needed tax revenue to the state. And I may have just talked myself into voting "Yes". We'll see.

Proposition 21-Increasing Vehicle License Fee to support State Parks: Yes
This is a no-brainer. Our state parks need saving, since Governor Schwarzenegger put them on the chopping block, and California cars will get free parking. It's a win-win!

Proposition 23 - Suspending AB 32, the green bill: NO!
We can't afford to take any steps back in the fight against climate change. It is real, and it is happening.

Proposition 25 - Changes budget vote requirement from two-thirds to simple majority: ABSOLUTELY!!!!
Every year, we go through the same ordeal of getting a budget passed. It is beyond ridiculous, and it is due to this unreasonable requirement of getting a two-thirds vote.

Proposition 26 - Requires two-thirds vote to approve fees: NO!
See above. This is just a scheme for businesses to avoid any new fees. The founders of this country believed in the simple majority, and I do too.

So that is how I'm voting. How about you?

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Why CEOs Are Not the Best Political Candidates

Two wealthy former CEOs are running for political office here in California: Meg Whitman (formerly of eBay) and Carly Fiorina (formerly of HP). They are both using the fact that they ran companies and were successful in business as evidence that they will be able to be successful politicians, but this is definitely not the case.

First of all, corporations are not run as democracies. Yes, there are varying levels of consensus that are built and people play "politics", but at the end of the day, the CEO is the boss and has total power over those beneath her in the organizational hierarchy. Corporations are more like dictatorships. CEOs don't have to negotiate and compromise. They can listen to everyone's opinions and then make the decisions. This does not prepare anyone for the political process at all. And I think one thing all can agree on is that we don't want this country run like a dictatorship!

Secondly, the goal of a CEO above all else is to make the company successful. A good CEO cares about the people of the company, but it's really because those people contribute to achieving the goals of the organization. The mindset of a CEO has to be to consider business goals first, people second. Leaving aside employee safety, which absolutely should be the top priority, to illustrate what I mean, a business leader should work to keep employees engaged, motivated and, therefore, productive. However, business leaders should not feel obligated to keep someone employed even if they are doing a bad job because that's better for the employee.

On the other hand, the goal of an elected official as part of our representative democracy is to represent the people who have elected him or her. Being a CEO does not prepare anyone for this role, because they think of people as an important means to an end. And I am not saying this is a bad thing! Business leaders have to think this way, but I sure don't want political leaders to. I want political leaders to represent their entire constituency, from CEOs to those struggling in poverty.

I would much rather be represented by an experienced politician, who understands the legal system, knows how to navigate the political process, and above all has demonstrated commitment and passion for representing "we the people" in this representative democracy: people like Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer.

Saturday, September 11, 2010

September 11th and its Long-Lasting Impact

Last year, on this date, I wrote this post remembering September 11th. At that time, I wanted to focus on remembering those who perished on that fateful day. Now, one year later, with hatred, fear and bigotry even more pronounced, I can't help but reflect on the long lasting negative impact September 11th has had on this country. It's like we are still reeling from the blow to our innocence. My sister compared it to a case of national post traumatic stress disorder, and observing the turmoil and divisiveness taking place right now, I have to agree. The fear is so heightened that people are talking about "terror babies" and concocting wild scenarios of Islamic community centers being "victory mosques" or training compounds. There is no basis in fact for any of these outlandish theories, but people are still so scared, they will believe anything. And the very freedoms we are supposedly hated for and are supposed to be defending (freedom of religion, freedom from unlawful search and seizure, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment) are slipping through our fingers as fear takes over our rational minds and our Constitutional rights are diluted.

And of course, the money we have spent on the so-called "War on Terror" that could have helped our economy through the financial crisis is gone with absolutely nothing to show for it. Osama bin Laden was never found, Al Qaeda is still recruiting, we are caught in a quagmire in Afghanistan, and Iraq is a mess.

Yes, I remember 9/11 with terrible sadness, but now it's as much for where we are today as for what happened that horrible morning nine years ago.

Friday, August 27, 2010

Continuing the Constitutional Theme: The Fourteenth Amendment

I find it so amusing/infuriating that Republicans, who have been going on and on about how they are the only ones defending the Constitution, are now complaining about one part of the Constitution: the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, Republicans have a problem with the part of the Fourteenth Amendment that declares all persons born in the United States to be citizens. Here is the text:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The text is about as clear as you can get. All persons born here are citizens. End of story. Well, apparently, only the parts of the Constitution that Republicans like are sacred. And Republicans don't like the thought of babies born to illegal immigrants automatically being citizens. Republicans claim that illegal immigrants are coming over the border (because this is really only about Mexicans, right?) to have "anchor babies" who presumably will help them stay in this country. Actually, children can only sponsor parents when they are 21 years old. That's a pretty long-term plan! There must be easier ways, right? Another outlandish claim is that terrorists are coming here to birth "terror babies" who will rise up in 20 years to rain terror upon us! Again, a pretty long time to wait for evil plots to come to fruition. I mean, seriously, where do they come up with this crap?

The argument Republicans are making that irritates me the most is that the Fourteenth Amendment was only put in place to guarantee citizenship for former slaves, and there was no intent for it to go beyond that. That is utter bullshit. The people who wrote the amendment and went through the onerous process of getting it ratified would not have gone through all of that trouble if they did not intend it to be a permanent addition to the Constitution. In fact, the reason it was a constitutional amendment was to take citizenship out of the political process. They didn't want a Supreme Court or Congress voting to take away such rights and wanted to make it pretty damn clear and well-defined.

Either you honor the whole Constitution or not. You can't pick and choose the parts you like (e.g. the Second Amendment) and then ignore the parts you don't like (birthright citizenship, freedom of religion - see mosque controversy, equal protection -- see anti-gay marriage movement, cruel and unusual punishment -- see Bush torture memos, unlawful search and seizure see Bush illegal wiretapping, etc. etc. etc.) Wow, seeing it all laid out, it seems the only part of the Constitution that Republicans do like is that part about the right to bear arms!

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Explaining Freedom of Speech

So Dr. Laura Schlessinger is quitting her radio show, because she wants to "regain [her] first amendment rights". Once again, I feel it is my duty to educate right-wingers who claim to love the Constituion so much what it actually means. Provided below is the actual text of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

OK, there it is. The key words here are "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Now, please explain how people being justifiably angry about Dr. Laura using what is universally-agreed to be an offensive term and complaining (using their freedom of speech, I must note) to radio stations and sponsors destroyed her first amendment rights? The answer is it didn't at all, since there was no government censorship. It's that simple, case closed. So Dr. Laura and a certain other habitual tweeter who shall not be named? Go back to school and learn what the U.S. Constitution really means and stop spouting lies and distortions to your ignorant fans.

Monday, August 16, 2010

Defending Freedom of Religion

It is a sad state of affairs when the very freedom this country is founded on is being trampled by those who profess to respect and value the founders and the Constitution they wrote. I am, of course, speaking of the national uproar over the plans to build - not a mosque - but an Islamic cultural center - not at ground zero - but several blocks away. The fact that this is even a debate is just ridiculous. The Republicans are, as usual, feeding on fear and hatred to score political points. And the Democrats are not strong enough to stick to their principles and defend freedom of religion fully. Senator Harry Reid now has said that it should be built elsewhere. How sad.

Bottom line, separation of church and state dictates that none of these politicians should have anything to say about where and what a religious organization builds on private property. And if you can't defend that, then you do not understand what America stands for.

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Matt Taibbi on Lara Logan

Lara Logan, CBS foreign correspondent, criticized the Rolling Stone reporter who wrote the General McChrystal story. Here is Matt Taibbi's awesome response.

Lara Logan, You Suck --

Sunday, April 11, 2010

Random Thoughts

Here are my thoughts on some current events:

Tina Fey on SNL - I'm a bit disappointed with her Sarah Palin sketch. My favorite part was the re-edited Katie Couric interview, but I guess I wanted a skewering.

Supreme Court - With Justice Steven's retirement, I really hope President Obama doesn't enable the court to shift more to the right. Nominate a liberal and don't let the Republicans scare you into going moderate... PLEASE!

Nuclear Treaty - See Jon Stewart for brilliant counter to bullshit Republicans are spewing. President Obama is doing nothing more than President Reagan himself aspired to do. And Fox News is allowing straight-out lies to fill their airwaves. The treaty specifically excludes biological attacks from the agreement to not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries. And, hello? We have a lot of powerful bombs that are not nuclear do we not? We can certainly bomb the shit out of a country without using nukes...see Iraq.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Big Bang Treaty
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorTea Party

ACORN hoax - See The Brad Blog for amazing story that finally hit the mainstream media with Rachel Maddow. Remember that horrifying ACORN tape that came out with ACORN workers giving advice to an outlandishly dressed pimp? Well, apparently, the tape was doctored after the fact. The "pimp" was actually dressed in normal college student attire when he actually visited ACORN offices, and the story he gave ACORN workers was that his girlfriend was trapped by a pimp. Didn't know that? Yeah, because even after it was determined the tape was a hoax, nobody reported it for months. Meanwhile, ACORN may be no more. What a shame.

Friday, April 2, 2010

Erin Kotecki Vest, BlogHer Political Director, on CNN

I just watched Erin Kotecki Vest, BlogHer Political Director, on CNN discussing the gender gap when it comes to politics. My view is that the Republican Party is, for the most part, by men and for men. Democrats are much more attuned to what women care about, issues like education, health care, and equal rights. Republicans are for the status quo, which historically has benefited white men.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Thank You, Dennis Kucinich

Today, Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio announced that he will vote yes on the health care reform bill, and I want to thank him. Although the bill is far from perfect, and I am disappointed it does not include a public option, it does contain provisions that will help many Americans. Here are the top ten immediate benefits according to the House Democrats:
  • Prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions for children in all new plans;
  • Provide immediate access to insurance for uninsured Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition through a temporary high-risk pool;
  • Prohibit dropping people from coverage when they get sick in all individual plans;
  • Lower seniors prescription drug prices by beginning to close the donut hole;
  • Offer tax credits to small businesses to purchase coverage;
  • Eliminate lifetime limits and restrictive annual limits on benefits in all plans;
  • Require plans to cover an enrollee’s dependent children until age 26;
  • Require new plans to cover preventive services and immunizations without cost-sharing;
  • Ensure consumers have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal new insurance plan decisions;
  • Require premium rebates to enrollees from insurers with high administrative expenditures and require public disclosure of the percent of premiums applied to overhead costs.
Representative Kucinich, by changing his vote, is helping millions of Americans. And when this legislation takes effect and brings visible benefits and is not the boogieman that the Republicans are making it out to be, that will pave the way for further reform.

Finally, it is so important that we not allow the Republicans the victory of defeating this legislation just for the sake of hurting President Obama. Because that is all it is about for the Republicans. They don't care about anything but political victories.

So thank you, Dennis Kucinich, for making this courageous move. And for all the progressives out there who are criticizing him for it, please look at the bigger picture. This is not a harmful bill. It just doesn't go as far as we would have liked. Don't allow the Republicans a victory because we can't unite. If the liberals contribute to the bill not passing, they are just as bad as the Blue Dogs.

Monday, January 25, 2010

Citizens United: A Week Later

The founding fathers had no intention of granting corporations freedoms of individuals. This Supreme Court decision is a travesty.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Go Left, President Obama, Go Left!

A lot has been written about the election in Massachusetts and what it means for the the Democratic Party and President Obama's agenda. Of course, the Republicans have been all over the airwaves insisting that this means that the country is not in favor of President Obama's "far left" agenda. My fear is that the Democrats are listening. I contend that the Massachusetts election results mean that the Obama Administration hasn't gone left enough, and here is why.

When President Obama was elected, the country was going through a severe financial crisis and dwindling support of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was swept into office on a sea of hope and change. It appears that the President was hopeful that the seriousness of the situation our country was facing would be the catalyst for true collaboration between the Democratic and Republican parties for the good of the country. However, he underestimated the tenacity of the Republicans and how much they prioritize politics and power over country. He got caught in a trap of seeking common ground and compromise, while the other side never intended to compromise at all. A perfect example is what happened with the stimulus package. The final bill was a watered-down version, including a huge percentage of tax cuts instead of job creation components. Economists, such as Paul Krugman, said it was no time to worry about the deficit and that we should have spent way more on the stimulus for it to be highly effective. And what did Obama get for this compromise? Not one single House Republican vote. And watered down stimulus meant watered down results.

The same thing happened with health care reform. The Democrats actually started from a position of compromise by not even putting single payer on the table. Then, they gave away public option, all to appease these supposedly moderate Republicans and conservative "Democrats". Time was squandered with negotiation and compromise until the Democrats lost their sixty-vote super-majority anyway.

Obama has increased troops to Afghanistan, has not repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", has not investigated the war crimes of the Bush/Cheney Administration, and has not pushed financial industry reform.

So, the end result is that progressive Democrats are disappointed and even though there are signs of improvement in the economy, many are still hurting. For those people, it is easiest to blame the party currently in power and to forget about the eight years of Bush policy that led us here.

By watering down the platform, President Obama has watered down the passion that got him and many other Democrats elected. He has succeeded in finding a middle ground but one that no one is happy with.

That is why I say now is not the time to move even more towards the middle. If we stand on the principles that economic stimulus and health care reform are good for the country, that the wars are unjustified, ineffective against terrorism and a drain of our resources, that the financial services industry need to be regulated so that those who caused the global financial crisis are not still raking in billions of dollars in bonuses and still capable of making the same mistakes that got us here, then we cannot buy the self-serving analysis from the right. Now is the time to stand on principle and go left, President Obama, go left!

Monday, January 18, 2010

Best Jon Stewart Line Ever

I just watched tonight's "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart", and it led off with the situation in Massachusetts, which I wrote about earlier today. Leave it to Jon Stewart to lend some perspective, basically pounding on Democrats for being so gutless that they are allowing the Republicans to wield immense power as a minority party. The video isn't up yet, but here is Jon Stewart's best. line. ever.

"Let me see if I have this straight. You need to replace perhaps the most beloved liberal in the history of the Senate with a candidate that believes Curt Schilling is a Yankee fan, because if this lady loses, the healthcare reform bill that the beloved late Senator considered his legacy will die. And the reason it will because if Coakley loses, Democrats will only then have a 18-vote majority in the Senate, which is more than President Bush ever had in the Senate when he did whatever the fuck he wanted to do."

Senate Race in Massachusetts

Election Day is tomorrow, and in Massachusetts, the stakes could not be higher. Martha Coakley is the Democrat running for the late Senator Kennedy's long-held seat in the U.S. Senate. Unbelievably, the race is very close, and the Republican could possibly win. This would take away the Democrats' so-called supermajority and basically kill health care reform and probably anything on President Obama's agenda.

I have tried to figure out what is going on. Basically, I have seen commentary that Martha Coakley "deserves to lose" because she appears to have taken her victory for granted. Really? Because, in punishing her for her supposed "hubris", the Massachusetts voters will hand power over to the Republicans to obstruct anything and everything to their hearts' delight. Nothing will get done, and they will achieve their goal of making President Obama ineffective.

For those who are frustrated with the Democrats for not being stronger advocates for progressive ideals, sitting idly by while the Republicans get the 41st vote they crave to shut down the Senate is not the answer. The answer is to maintain the supermajority and make our voices heard even louder. We need to make sure our representatives know that we voted for change, and we are not satisfied with the status quo. Principles are more important than bipartisanship.

And don't forget to look at the other guy, here is a great summary of why Scott Brown is a horrible choice.

If you live in Massachusetts, please go out and vote for Martha Coakley and convince everyone you know to do the same. The stakes are just too high.

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

My Post Syndicated on BlogHer!

I am very excited that my post on Republican hypocrisy was selected to be syndicated by BlogHer, the leading participatory news, entertainment and information network for women online. It is on the front page right now! Please check it out!