US Congress

Time For TRUE Conservative Republican Nominee So That Conservatism Can Be Exposed For What It Is: A Plea For Rick Santorum’s Nomination For The Presidency!

Ronald Leave a comment

Conservatism has been said to be a dominant factor in the Republican Party for a long time, and conservatives in Congress and on talk radio and Fox News Channel have been spewing forth their poison, whether it is to go to war as a first resort, rather last last resort; putting women, African Americans, Hispanics and Latinos, gays and lesbians, labor, poor people, environmentalists, public service workers, consumer advocates, and anyone who promotes progressivism, in their place; and promoting corporations, the wealthy, and religion and the military as dominant parts of American power to make our nation a militaristic, religiously based plutocracy, only advocating the interests of the few, rather than the many!

But the frustration of these conservatives is that, somehow, it never seems to work out quite like they expect. Witness: Dwight D. Eisenhower defeats Robert Taft in 1952 and does “unconservative” policies in office; Richard Nixon also disappoints in many areas; Gerald Ford and his wife Betty actually promote social progressivism; even Ronald Reagan shows that he can be moved away from hard line conservative ideas; George H. W. Bush is clearly too moderate and centrist; George W. Bush follows certain aspects of conservatism, particularly following the “neocons” in foreign affairs, but too involved in “compassionate conservatism” in domestic affairs and government spending; and even Bob Dole and John McCain, losing GOP Presidential nominees, are insufficiently conservative, and actually come across as “moderates”, a hated term.

And now Mitt Romney cannot be trusted to be hard line conservative, despite his own efforts at protestations. And even Barry Goldwater, thought to be in 1964, the “ideal” conservative, later revealed his social progressivism and condemned the role of religion in the Republican Party! What is a frustrated conservative to do?

The answer is back and nominate former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who wants to bomb Iran on Day One in office; wants a very hard line social conservatism, putting women “back in their place”; wants no regulation of business or corporations that interferes with “free enterprise”; wishes to wipe out by any means the rights of gays and lesbians; wishes to take away all of the federal entitlement programs of the New Deal and Great Society; return America back to the 1950s in some ways, the 1920s in other ways, and the Gilded Age of the late 19th century in other ways!

Conservatives want to bring back the “good old days” of white male domination over society, and corporate influence, joined with the military and religious control over our foreign and domestic policies.

Let’s hope, even pray, that Rick Santorum is nominated, and watch as he is obliterated in November, and his support by conservatives sets them back for at least a generation, and give mainline Republicans the opportunity to rebuild the party as what it once was, a centrist party, a good competition for the Democratic Party. And if the GOP refuses to reform itself, then it should be replaced by a new moderate centrist party in the mainstream of 21st century America!

Of course, notice that the author said a “generation” would pass of conservative decline, as sadly, to believe conservatism will leave our shores forever, is not going to happen, as it is like a recurring cancer on the body politic–it WILL return eventually, and the battle for control of government and politics is, therefore, a never ending battle of American history!

Congress Approval At All Time Low: What It Means

Ronald 4 Comments

A new poll shows that only TEN percent of those polled have a positive view of Congress in 2012.

The Gallup Poll showed the unbelievable reality that Congress has a lower rating than BP during the Oil Spill, or Richard Nixon during Watergate, or banks during the banking crisis of 2008.

This could mean, in theory, that we could witness a wholesale removal of members of both parties in Congress in November, but that is really highly unlikely.

The fact that many Americans are unhappy with Congress as an institution does not mean that they do not like THEIR member of Congress, and most members routinely get re-elected, particularly in the House of Representatives, with a higher chance of defeat in the Senate races.

Also, reapportionment of seats, which occurs once in a decade, will probably promote less turnover since boundary lines change. And since a substantial number of members of Congress are retiring, some of them are leaving because they see the handwriting on the wall, as the saying goes!

More than incumbents losing who do not retire, is the question of whether the Republicans can retain control of the House of Representatives, and whether the Democrats can continue to control the Senate.

What seems most likely at this juncture is that we may see a switch in party control in both chambers, as the Democrats only need a 25 seat gain to take control, and there is great discontent with the Tea Party Movement membership in the GOP, which has made life miserable for Speaker of the House John Boehner and his party.

And the likelihood is that the US Senate will see a Republican takeover, needing only four seats to accomplish that.

This will present a new scenario for President Barack Obama if he is re-elected, but it is a more normal situation to have a Democratic House and a Republican Senate historically, having occurred from 1911-1913, 1931-1933. and from 1981-1987. The present opposite party control in the two chambers–a Republican House and a Democratic Senate–has NEVER happened, and seems to have proved to be less able to accomplish ANY cooperation as a result!

Republicans, Women, And Domestic Violence: Beyond Belief!

Ronald 1 Comment

In 1994, the Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed into law the Violence Against Women Act, a measure designed to combat domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking of women. It was a totally bipartisan effort, widely hailed as an important step in protection of women.

In 2000 and in 2005, the law was renewed with bipartisan support again. It was not a political issue based on party.

But now in 2012, not a single Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to reauthorize the legislation, an absolutely unbelievable development.

Those Republicans on the Judiciary Committee include: Chick Grassley of Iowa, the ranking member; Orrin Hatch of Utah; Jon Kyl of Arizona; Jeff Sessions of Alabama; Lindsey Graham of South Carolina; John Cornyn of Texas; Mike Lee of Utah; and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

How in the world can any of these senators justify this refusal to support a renewal? What is wrong with these people that they do not think women need continued protection from abusive fathers, brothers, boyfriends, and husbands, as well as stalkers? Why is it that whenever women are the issue, Republicans, both men and women as well, do not think women should be protected by federal law?

Apparently, the Republicans disagree on the provisions to protect gay and transgender people, and also to protect undocumented immigrant women who are victims of violence. It is part of their anti gay and anti immigrant agenda, but really, this is simply an issue of human rights, and in the 21st century, to have such a narrow minded and intolerant view of women’s rights, because some might be from certain groups rejected by some, is unconscionable!

Apparently, there are no limits to the refusal of Republicans to promote any bipartisanship on anything! How any self respecting woman can support the Republican Party after this insult, as well as others recently on birth control, contraception, and other issues of women’s health, is beyond understanding.

Newt Gingrich: The Demagogue, The Bully, The Narcissist, Revealed Again!

Ronald Leave a comment

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has been shown to be a full scale demagogue, and Mitt Romney showed Gingrich’s hypocrisy again and again in last night’s debate, leading to the belief that Romney has recovered from his defeat in very conservative South Carolina, and now is more likely than ever to be the GOP nominee.

Gingrich is a demagogue on the level of Joseph McCarthy and Richard Nixon; he is a bully; he is a narcissist par excellence; he is a man without any morals, ethics or scruples, except his own aggrandizement!

Newt Gingrich is willing to victimize the poor; he is willing to behave as a racist; he is willing to lie without any shame; he is willing to stir up anti Islamic hatred; he is willing to stir up trouble in the Middle East by claiming that Palestinians do not exist; he is willing to sacrifice wives as disposables for his own ambitions; and he is willing to use incendiary language against the President of the United States, and in so doing, encourage lack of respect for the person holding the office, in a way that no other President has EVER been treated!

The people he has worked with in the Republican Party and in Congress have turned against him, and the conservative ideologists have mostly abandoned him, with the major exception of Michael Reagan, Ronald Reagan’s adopted son, and conservative talk show host.

It cannot be soon enough for Newt Gingrich to be removed from the attention of the national news media. Maybe Florida will be the place of his “Waterloo”, and if so, NOT soon enough, as he makes the word “politician” a dirty word, which it should not be!

Two Year Anniversary Of Citizens United Supreme Court Case: The Corruption Of American Politics A National Tragedy

Ronald Leave a comment

Two years ago, the Supreme Court, controlled by a conservative majority of 5-4, made a decision considered among the worst ever in their history.

After a century of regulation of corporate involvement in political campaign fundraising and advertising, the majority, claiming freedom of speech, allowed corporations and labor unions to have totally free access to spend and promote candidates and parties.

On first blush, some might have thought that it was not such a bad decision, as labor unions were permitted to do the same as corporations. On second thought, it became noticeable that labor unions could not compete with corporate money, and the result was the distorted political atmosphere of the midterm 2010 Congressional and state elections, which led to the success of the Tea Party Movement and the right wing direction of many state governments and the US House of Representatives. This has created a stalemate in Congress, and attacks on labor, the elderly, the poor, minorities, and the environment in many state legislatures, and the widespread attempt to limit the right to vote by discriminatory voter registration laws.

We have witnessed the damage done, and the continual enrichment of the top one percent in America, and the Super PACs are in operation, poisoning the political atmosphere for the 2012 election campaigns for President and the Congress, as well as many state governments.

Our democracy is being lost, negating a century of reforms under the Progressive Era, the New Deal, and the Great Society.

A move is on to attempt a constitutional amendment to overrule the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, but that is not going to be easy, and meanwhile, or maybe for good, we are seeing corporations regain complete control of government at all levels, and bringing us back to the Gilded Age of the late 19th century.

This is a national tragedy of massive proportions!

The Keystone Pipeline Controversy: Crucial Issue For America’s Future

Ronald Leave a comment

The issue of promoting domestic sources of energy in a world where America depends too much on foreign sources of oil has led to the promotion by the Republican Party of the proposed Keystone Pipeline from Canada down to Texas as a major solution that must be approved by the federal government before it can move ahead.

But it is not all that easy and settled that the Keystone Pipeline is a good direction for American energy and the American environment.

Here are the facts:

The Pipeline would go from Alberta, Canada through Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Iowa, and Texas.

The chance of greenhouse gas emissions and oil spills in sensitive areas is worrisome, plus the reality of a seismic zone with earthquake activity as high as 4.3 magnitude in 2002.

The danger to one of the largest water supplies, the Ogallala Aquifer, a major fresh water source, which spans eight states, provides drinking water to 2 million people and $20 billion in agriculture in the major area of the Farm Belt, could devastate the Midwest economy and deny safe drinking water in case of a disaster similar to the Gulf Oil Spill.

The danger to the environment would include harm to migratory birds and other wildlife, and far more devastating damages from tar sands oil which is more polluting than regular petroleum, and could cause long term damage for centuries, all in the name of profit over safety.

The Republican Governor of Nebraska, Dave Heineman, has opposed the project because of concern as to its effect on Nebraska economically and environmentally. He has signed legislation to divert the pipeline away from sensitive areas in the state, because of concern over its long range impact. So it is not just Democrats who are concerned over the project.

The Koch Brothers, deeply involved in conservative causes, are a major influence on convincing the Republicans in Congress to pressure Barack Obama to agree to the project as part of a tax deal extension for the bulk of 2012, which means “blackmail” is being utilized in reality.

The idea of major employment growth is belied by the facts that only a few thousand permanent jobs would be created, having a negligible effect on the unemployment rate.

The effect on the entire energy picture in America would also be negligible, hardly a blip in the entire controversy over becoming less dependent on foreign oil. It is simply an attempt to force the pipeline on America despite its insignificant impact on both jobs and energy supply.

President Obama wants to delay the project decision moving forward to 2013, but it could become a hot political issue in 2012, and is a controversy which needs a lot more exposure and discussion before an agreement that could harm the long range future of the nation.

The Persistent Hillary Clinton For Vice President Chatter: Does It Make Sense? YES!

Ronald 2 Comments

Chatter is arising again, as it has on and off for a year, that President Barack Obama might ask Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to become his Vice Presidential running mate for the Presidential Election of 2012, with Vice President Joe Biden dutifully steeping aside and becoming Secretary of State in a second Obama term.

This is something that has been dismissed in the past as not going to happen, and not advisable to happen. The author himself is a great Joe Biden fan, and the general feeling is that Joe Biden has done a great job as Vice President, adding distinction to the office.

However, the arguments for Hillary Clinton as Vice President are as follows:

1. Hillary Clinton has improved her credentials as Secretary of State, but is tiring of the constant travel and wants to leave the State Department.

2. While Hillary claims she wishes to retire, and proceed to write, speak and travel, it is hard to believe that the highly competitive Mrs. Clinton really wants to do what she says!

3. With the possibility of a close election due to the slowly recovering economy, Hillary would certainly be a plus for Barack Obama, more so than Joe Biden, as she has great public support, with a present public opinion rating of 64 percent, higher than anyone.

4. Hillary Clinton running for Vice President would be likely to bring more Democratic victories in Congress, which is essential to accomplish the goals of a second Obama term.

5. Hillary would bring more support for the President among women, Hispanics and Latinos, African Americans and young people, the core of the Obama victory in 2008, but flagging somewhat in all areas after the realities of three years in power.

6. Hillary running would bring about the first woman Vice President in reality, an exciting proposition after the disastrous candidacies of Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 and Sarah Palin in 2008.

7. The Democratic Party would have a front runner for President in 2016, although others would challenge Hillary, but it would increase the chances of a third Democratic term, and even possibly a fourth Democratic term, in the White House, and extra strength for the Democrats in Congress for the future beyond Barack Obama.

8. So called “shotgun marriages” in politics have occurred before with success, such as John F. Kennedy with Lyndon B. Johnson in 1960 and Ronald Reagan with George H. W. Bush in 1980.

9. Having Bill Clinton, supremely popular almost on the level of his wife, fully working for Obama and his own wife, would make for an exciting, dynamic campaign, creating a “marriage” between two powerful families, and would work well electorally.

10. Hillary could help President Obama in the crucial Midwest, with white working class men and women, her strong point in 2008, and his weak point.

11. Joe Biden would be a “good soldier”, who would willingly agree to step aside, but would get his ideal job, based on his career in the Senate, as having been former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and loving that area of policy, he would have great impact as Secretary of State in a second Obama term, and being 74 by the end of the second Obama term, would not be likely to seek the Presidency or be a real challenge to Hillary or other Democrats at that stage of his life. But since he has good relations with Hillary, he could have a future in the position of Secretary of State or some other important position in 2016.

12. Finally, some might say that the Bill and Hillary Clinton shortcomings might be revived in a race in 2012 and beyond, but that is all old news, not new, and would have little impact, as their reputations have soared, rather than declined!

So therefore, it makes sense at this point for Barack Obama to ask Hillary Clinton to be his running mate, and for Joe Biden to replace her in 2013 as Secretary of State in a second Obama administration, good for all of them, for the Democratic Party, and for the future of America!

Defense Cuts Coming: Unavoidable, And Reasonable Long Term

Ronald Leave a comment

The Pentagon, Secretary of State Leon Panetta, and President Barack Obama have announced plans for the future of our military, which are unavoidable and reasonable long term.

The philosophy behind the defense plans is that present costs for military spending, and trying to have the capability for involvement in two major wars at the same time, is unsustainable in the present economic climate.

Instead, involvement in one major war, with ability to send troops to a second theater of war, with eventual commitment of some troops from the first theater of war over time, is the best that America can do.

Also, the goal is to face the reality that future military personnel cannot have the same expenditures on families, health care costs, salaries, and pensions, as those costs now are beginning to become a financial burden on the American treasury.

Also, the major focus will be on the area of Asia and the Pacific, rather than the Middle East, where so much effort has been concentrated . The thought is that China, North Korea, and Pakistan are the major challenges for the long term future, and should be given the focus of our attention, without forgetting about Iran.

The one way not mentioned to change this reality is to start heavier taxation, particularly of the wealthy, as cutting of entitlements, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is not acceptable in any major fashion. We will have tp pay as we go if we want everything to be what everyone wants, but right now, that is not possible, so we need to concentrate on where it is felt the major challenges are in the future.

We must also face a more restrained use of military force in general, and more modest foreign policy goals, and deal with the internal problems this nation faces.

Conventional forces will be de-emphasized in favor of counter terrorist actions and “irregular” warfare, and greater investment in long range stealth bombers and anti missile systems.

Fighting regional wars, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, will be no longer a goal of the military, causing long periods of commitment and wearing down the budget costs.

The goal is to cut defense spending by $480 billion over the next decade, but if Congress fights over it, automatic cuts could rise to $1 trillion!

Special Forces troops, elite counter terrorist troops, and armed drones are the future of the military, with a decline in conventional ground forces.

The Army and Marine Corps would decline in numbers, and fewer troops would be stationed in Europe, in order to allow greater deployment into the Asia-Pacific theater.

This plan for the future will lead to a fight in Congress, but what else is new?

The Dangers Of The National Defense Authorization Act Signing By President Obama

Ronald Leave a comment

President Obama, on his way back from vacation in Hawaii, quietly signed the National Defense Authorization Act, bitterly opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union and other civil libertarians.

Without much fanfare, Obama signed the legislation on December 31, permitting the national government to have powers it has never had
before in peacetime. The 565 page bill includes provisions allowing for indefinite detention of people that the government suspects are involved in international terrorism. The legislation seems to allow arrests by the military in the US of American citizens, a very terrifying idea! President Obama issued a signing statement regarding this legislation, but that does not mean that a future President would not abuse the law and have American citizens arrested.

This is a violation of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, and one can hope for a Supreme Court decision declaring it unconstitutional, but that is probably not likely when it comes to powers involving war and security of the nation.

This can be seen as an extension of the Patriot Act, which many concerned people also think. is a violation of our civil liberties. The fact that members of both parties in Congress passed this legislation is also very troubling.

The danger that is most obvious is that a future President could use this new legislation in a way that President Obama has made clear his administration will NOT use it. The precedent has been set, and will be hard to reverse.

One could say that as long as a person stays within the law, does not break the law, is a citizen who does nothing illegal, that he or she does not have to be concerned. But even with that thought, there is still the possibility of innocent victims who become embroiled in the growing security network of the nation, and become victims.

So we have a new concern to be worried about regarding the BIll Of Rights!

A Major Positive For Barack Obama In 2012: The Hispanic-Latino Vote

Ronald 1 Comment

Many Hispanics and Latinos are unhappy with President Barack Obama, due to the deportation policies of the administration, seen as considerably tougher than under George W. Bush; and to the continuing economic difficulties faced by them, a higher unemployment rate than whites.

But yet, it seems clear from a survey of the Pew Hispanic Center that Hispanics and Latinos will back Obama by 2-1 over any Republican opponent.

The reason is the constant anti Hispanic and anti Latino statements of Republicans running for the Presidency, and the Republican membership of Congress.

Also, jobs, education and health care matter most to Hispanics and Latinos, and on all three, the GOP is seen as unfriendly and antagonistic to the values and concerns of those groups.

John McCain received 31 percent of the Hispanic and Latino vote in 2008. George W. Bush had done better, with about 40 percent. It seems clear that whoever the Republican nominee is, he is unlikely to get much more than 20 percent, if that.

And only Cuban Americans are likely to vote in the majority for the Republican nominee for President, while Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, and other Central and South American Hispanics will certainly back Obama overwhelmingly!