Bipartisanship Finally???

Well, the Senate finally found something they could agree on and pass with a bipartisan vote.

A measure to give some 57 million elderly people, veterans and persons with disabilities a $250 check was rejected by the Senate on Wednesday, a setback for the powerful seniors' lobby.

President Barack Obama has called for Congress to approve the payments to make up for their benefits not increasing this year, but the Senate defeated it 50 to 47.

The payments would have added $13 billion to a $108 billion job-creation package pending in the Senate.

Congress approved payments last year as part of the $862 billion stimulus package.

Social Security payments for the elderly and disabled will stay flat this year for the first time since 1975 because they are tied to consumer prices, which decreased amid the worst economic recession in 70 years.

That follows a year in which payments rose by 5.8 percent, largely due to a spike in gasoline prices.

"It is wrong to turn our backs on seniors in this moment of economic difficulty," said Independent Senator Bernie Sanders, who sponsored the amendment.

But Republican Senator Judd Gregg pointed out that the bill would defeat the purpose of indexing Social Security payments to inflation.

"The law says it shouldn't be given," Gregg said.

At least 10 Democrats agreed with Gregg and joined 40 Republicans to defeat the proposal.

57 Million seniors thank you!

Source: Yahoo News; Reuters(Reporting by Andy Sullivan; Editing by Xavier Briand)

The Politics of Fear

The RNC strategy was detailed in a confidential party fundraising presentation, obtained by POLITICO. The presentation was delivered by RNC Finance Director Rob Bickhart to top donors and fundraisers at a party retreat in Boca Grande, Florida on February 18, a source at the gathering said. The presentation explains the Republican fundraising in simple terms.

"What can you sell when you do not have the White House, the House, or the Senate...?" it asks.

The answer: "Save the country from trending toward Socialism!”

What’s clear is that the committee's strategy for raising money this election cycle will be fear-mongering, manipulating donors with crude caricatures and playing on their fears. One page from the presentation is "The Evil Empire." On it, President Obama is made to look like the Joker from Batman, Nancy Pelosi is depicted as Cruella DeVille, and Harry Reid as Scooby-Doo.

The 72-page document was provided to POLITICO by a Democrat, who said a hard copy had been left in the hotel hosting the $2,500-a-head retreat, the Gasparilla Inn & Club. Sources at the event said the presentation was delivered by Bickhart and by the RNC Finance Chairman, Peter Terpeluk, a former ambassador to Luxembourg under President George W. Bush.

The RNC reacted with alarm to a question about it Wednesday, emailing major donors to warn them of a reporter’s question. RNC Chairman Michael Steele's office has already distanced itself from the pitch. "Obviously, the chairman disagrees with the language and finds the use of such imagery to be unacceptable," committee communications director Doug Heye told Politico.

Let’s not forget that the politics of hate is hardly unique to Republicans or to the RNC. Democrats raised millions off George W. Bush in similar terms.

The most unusual section of the presentation is a set of six slides headed “RNC Marketing 101.” The presentation divides fundraising into two traditional categories, direct marketing and major donors, and lays out the details of how to approach each group.

The small donors who are the targets of direct marketing are described under the heading “Visceral Giving.” Their motivations are listed as “fear;” “Extreme negative feelings toward existing Administration;” and “Reactionary.” Major donors, by contrast, are treated in a column headed “Calculated Giving.”
Their motivations include: “Peer to Peer Pressure”; “access”; and “Ego-Driven.”
The slide also allows that donors may have more honorable motives, including “Patriotic Duty.”

Don't pretend to be shocked. The worst part about all of this from where I sit is that the tactics seem to work and both political parties use it.

Source: POLITICO

Van Jones Back in the Game

Van Jones, the environmental justice advocate who relinquished his post as a White House adviser five months ago after coming under fire from conservative activists, is reemerging on the public policy stage to push for green jobs.

Jones, who has been consulting for companies and nonprofits on environmental issues, will start teaching at Princeton University in June and is rejoining the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, next month. On Friday, he will receive the NAACP's President's Award, for achievement in public service, the organization announced Tuesday.

His job at the White House Council on Environmental Quality sparked an uproar last fall when conservative talk-show host Glenn Beck publicized some of Jones's earlier comments and actions. Beck attacked Jones for signing a petition in 2004 from the group 911Truth.org that questioned whether officials in President George W. Bush's administration "may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war," and for using a crude term to describe Republicans in a speech he gave before joining the administration, both of which Jones apologized for before resigning his post.

Jones says, "The good thing about being an American is you're free to think whatever you want, and you're also free to change your mind. That's my story. . . . God willing, I've got 10 or 20 years, 30 years, three decades more work to do. And it's my hope and belief that people will judge me based on that work."

He will have a one-year joint appointment as a distinguished visiting fellow at Princeton University's Center for African American Studies and Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, where he will teach a seminar on environmental and economic policy.

I guess, when all is said and done, I agree with John Ruskin:

"What we think or what we know
or what we believe is, in the
end, of little consequence.
The only consequence is what we do"

Time will tell it all.




Source: Washington Post
Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Tea Party Convention

The National Tea Party Convention is being held at a fancy resort, features $550 ticket prices, a steak and lobster dinner and a guest speaker with a $100,000 speaking fee. It’s sponsored by a for-profit company with a mysterious wealthy benefactor, and its organizers, who have been accused of secrecy and corruption, have threatened lawsuits against dissenters and clamped down on news coverage.

Sounds like just the kind of thing that tea party activists, whose populist outrage is directed at the Washington and Wall Street establishments, would be up in arms over.

Except it’s a tea party convention.

Setting the Convention's Tone:
The opening speaker at the first National Tea Party Convention called President Obama a "committed Socialist ideologue" who was elected because "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote."

"You have launched the counter-revolution," the speaker, former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), told 600 or so delegates of the grassroots movement assembled at the Gaylord Opryland Hotel in Nashville Wednesday night. "It is our nation."

Tancredo also insisted on using Obama's middle name, Hussein, and said he was thankful Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona lost the 2008 presidential election because Obama has mobilized an uprising.

Key note speaker Sarah Palin:
Sarah Palin presented no ideas for change and she presented nothing of any substance to build a plan upon. True, true, she was there to fire-up the TEA Partiers, so it wasn’t as if she needed to come prepared to present a plan to bring America back from Socialistic death. Saturday night it was all about Sarah Palin, the cheerleader.

As with any protest movement, consensus at the Tea Party Convention proved elusive in two days of debate, but they seemed to agree on five key points:

1. Don't Tread on Me
The tea-party folks are innately suspicious of any institutions.

2. The Party in Tea Party Refers Only to Boston
"Form another party? Why would we want to do that?"

3. We Don't Need a Leader
"The tea-party movement has no leader, and ... neither did the American Revolution,"

4. This We Believe
Small government, lower taxes, greater individual liberties, more power to the states and government strictly by the Constitution and Bill of Rights: these are the general principles all tea-party activists can agree upon, to the extent that there was much discussion about a platform.

5. President Palin?
At one point on Saturday, some disgruntled Tennessee tea-party activists held a press conference to complain about the cost of attending the event ($549 per person), which they say excluded many supporters. But when asked whether they begrudged Sarah Palin her reported $100,000 speaking fee, they blanched. "Of course not. I love Sarah Palin, we — I think it's safe to say we — all love Sarah Palin," said one of those complaining about ticket prices that presumably helped to pay for her keynote speech.

"You don't need an office or a title to make a difference," Palin said, noting that Saturday would have been Ronald Reagan's 99th birthday. "We are now the keepers of conservative values and good works."

In Washington, the Republican establishment has wrestled with the tea party movement, but House Republican Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) said that there is "no difference" in the beliefs of Republicans and tea party activists.


Source: Yahoo News, Politico, Washington Post, Huffington Post

Bye Bye Bayh

Sen. Evan Bayh, a centrist Democrat from Indiana, announced Monday that he won't seek a third term in Congress. The announcement stunned the American political world.

In an interview with Charlie Rose, Bayh took pains to emphasize his support for President Obama's re-election, but said disarray within both political parties has created an opening for a third-party contender.

On MSNBC, Bayh declared the American political system "dysfunctional," riddled with "brain-dead partisanship" and permanent campaigning. Flatly denying any possibility that he'd seek the presidency or any other higher office, Bayh argued that the American people needed to deliver a "shock" to Congress by voting incumbents out en masse and replacing them with people interested in reforming the process and governing for the good of the people, rather than deep-pocketed special-interest groups.

Bayh blamed the current atmosphere of intense partisanship on the need for senators to constantly campaign to be reelected to another six-year term. He noted that the need for constant fundraising made it nearly impossible to focus on passing legislation.

Bayh has apparently become increasingly frustrated in the Senate. In an MSNBC interview he noted that just two weeks ago, Republicans who had co-sponsored a bill with him to rein in the deficit turned around and voted against it for purely political reasons. He also stated repeatedly that members of his own party should be more willing to settle for a compromise rather than holding out for perfection.

"Sometimes half a loaf is better than none," Bayh insisted.

Frustration over the increasing amount of money being spent on political campaigns isn't exactly a new thing, as spending by candidates in the 2008 presidential election nearly quadrupled the amount of money spent by candidates in the 2000 election. Additionally, winners of House races in 2000 spent an average of $849,158 to do so, while House winners in 2008 spent an average of $1,372,591. Enhancing the concerns of many on the left and the right has been a recent Supreme Court decision to strike down the country's existing campaign finance laws. Put simply, the ruling opens the door for an even greater influence of money by allowing corporations spend money directly on campaigns.

Voter frustration is high, making the fight for campaign cash all the more crucial to politicians hoping to remain in office. A recent poll found that 44% of Americans believe incumbents should be voted out of office.

However, reforms of Congress appear unlikely. There doesn't appear to be any significant momentum at this time behind efforts to change the rules that govern passing legislation or Congress's need to constantly campaign and fundraise. With an election year beginning, it's also unlikely that congressional leaders will begin to see eye to eye more often on major legislation.

Perhaps a "shock" is indeed called for in order to change that.

ESPN Says "Good Bye Paul Shirley"

Paul Shirley

Former NBA player and ESPN contributor Paul Shirley had some very harsh words for the people of Haiti. Shirley wrote an open letter to the people this is an excerpt:

Dear Haitians –First of all, kudos on developing the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Your commitment to human rights, infrastructure, and birth control should be applauded. As we prepare to assist you in this difficult time, a polite request: If it’s possible, could you not re-build your island home in the image of its predecessor? Could you not resort to the creation of flimsy shanty- and shack-towns? And could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?

Shirley penned a long blog entry at FlipCollective.com about Haiti and the consequences of its earthquake. He begins the entry by stating that he has not donated to relief efforts in Haiti and "probably will not... for the same reason that I don't give money to homeless men on the street. Based on past experiences, I don’t think the guy with the sign that reads 'Need You’re Help' is going to do anything constructive with the dollar I might give him. If I use history as my guide, I don’t think the people of Haiti will do much with my money either."

Shirley added:

"I don’t mean in any way that the Haitians deserved their collective fate. And I understand that it is difficult to plan for the aftermath of an earthquake. However, it is not outside the realm of imagination to think that the citizens of a country might be able to: A) avoid putting themselves into a situation that might result in such catastrophic loss of life. And B) provide for their own aid, in the event of such a catastrophe."

Shortly thereafter, ESPN cut ties with Shirley. The company's full statement: "He was a part-time freelance contributor. The views he expressed on another site of course do not at all reflect our company's views on the Haiti relief efforts. He will no longer contribute to ESPN."

How tasteless and repugnant could one be? I wonder what this guy could have been thinking when he made these statements. Fortunately, the people of Haiti have the support of most of the civilized world as they face the devastating consequences of a natural disaster. We all have work to do to provide basic services and livable conditions for this small country. Good bye Paul Shirley...stop the madness.

Sources: Wikipedia

Andre Bauer: Another SC "Foot in Mouth" Politican

Andre Bauer

South Carolina's lieutenant governor, Andre Bauer is known as “a fiercely ambitious Republican with a reputation for reckless and immature behavior”.

At a town hall meeting Thursday, Bauer, who is running for governor in his own right now that Sanford is term-limited, said: "My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed! You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that."

Democrats and Republicans alike railed at the comments.

Neal Thigpen, a political scientist at Francis Marion University said the lieutenant governor's latest remarks could hurt him in the general election in the fall by allowing Democrats to portray him as "insensitive and downright cruel." But as for the June Republican primary, "don't count him out. The kid's got a fanatical following," Thigpen said. "They're going to forgive him almost anything and stick to him like glue."

Similarly, Winthrop University political scientist Scott Huffmon said Bauer's words "came out as condescending and insulting," but his overall message about government dependency and personal responsibility will appeal to his evangelical Republican base.

Meanwhile, disgraced Gov. Mark Sanford prepares to deliver his last state-of-the-state address this week, the beginning of the end for a Republican once considered presidential material who has lost nearly everything except his job over an affair with an Argentine woman.

That Sanford will be there to give the speech at all reflects a combination of politics, lucky timing, and the fortitude to keep going when another shamed politician might simply have stepped down.

Bauer almost ascended to the top office last summer, after Sanford disappeared from the state for five days to be with his mistress. But the Legislature stopped short of impeachment. Politicians who had gubernatorial ambitions of their own, or were backing other candidates, knew that replacing Sanford with Bauer would have given the lieutenant governor a year-and-a-half tryout for the job and the benefit of running as an incumbent.

Joe Wilson, Mark Sanford and Andre Bauer are all politicians elected to represent the people of South Carolina. There must be something in the water that politicians and voters in the state are drinking that fosters reprehensible behavior followed by politics as usual. There’s a strong message in that and you quickly get that message “say or do what you like...there’s no accountability.”

Keep waving the Confederate flag!