Middle Ground

POSTED BY JHW22

Studies have shown that Dems/Libs have pretty much been even on their views for the last decades -- in some cases even moving more conservative. Based on policies, votes, etc, we really haven't moved further left or gone extreme.

On the other hand, the GOP/Cons have gone drastically farther right in that time frame.

So, when Dems are consistently representing their views, we appear as extreme as the right just because the debate itself has become so divided. So, when we say that it's hard to find middle ground, or that both parties yadda yadda, it's not always true. In most cases, the left is stating what they've always stated. The right has moved so far away that they changed where the middle is. In some ways it's created a framing problem that implies the left hasn't been cooperative, either.

But we have been and going anymore toward the middle would be us going off the consistent path we've been on.

I will always admit there are times when Dems (whom I know personally and whom I see on the teevee) do or say things that make me cringe and think tit-for-tat or hypocrisy is as unbecoming of us as it is of the right. I refuse to pretend we never do stupid shit that blows our credibility. To ignore when we do stupid shit makes us lose even more credibility.

But overall, the level of extreme stupidity and hypocrisy and dangerous rhetoric and stunting of progress falls wholly on the right.

So my frustration always rests on the passive or the folks who just don't like all the conflict. They pretend it's as much the left's fault as it is the right's. And it's not about sharing blame or properly placing blame or running to mommy and saying, "but they did it, too". What it's about is acceptance of reality. We can't get anywhere if even the sideliners don't accept that the left isn't being extreme. We are being consistent. The left isn't being difficult. We are being fair. The left isn't being combative. We are defending what we have always defended. The right has changed the rules even on those within their own party. The right has forged a new path that changes where the middle is. Just because Dems aren't moving to the new middle does NOT mean we're extreme. We're right where we've been for a long time. People need to stop pretending we are playing a role in divisiveness simply so they can play a responsible role in society.

Why We Never Get Through

POSTED BY JHW22

So many times I have great discussions with other Democrats and inevitably someone says something to the effect of "Republican women won't stand for that" or "Republican voters are sick of this". But when we step back and think about it, we are applying Democratic values, perceptions and priorities to their thinking.

For example, Democrats were sure that Republican women would be offended by the war on women being waged over the past year by their own party. But why? Why would we think that? Republican women don't think like Democratic women. It's not that they love their kids less or that they are heartless bitches. But, really, Republican women have different views than we do. So why would we expect a Republican woman to see the contraception debate the way a Democratic woman would? We see it as an assault on our rights. They see it as an assault on their rights. But we each have a focus on different sets of rights.

Then take Ron Paul. Democrats were convinced his newsletters would be the end of his campaign. Why? Why would we think that Republicans would see the newsletters the way we see them as opposed to the way Paul sees them? Do we think they'll all of a sudden think like us because it's such a big deal issue? No. Republicans aren't going to drastically change their life experiences and conclusions taken from them just because WE as Democrats are offended by something. There's no sensible basis to expect it. So why do we?

Today Democrats are outraged by Rush Limbaugh and his vile comments about a college girl who stood up for a woman's right to have access to birth control. He implied she is paid for sex, is a slut and apparently he wants to watch sex tapes with her in them. Democrats are appalled for good reason. But here's the deal, I don't know any Republican who listen to Rush who will say "that crossed a line". The people who listen to Rush have crossed that line plenty of times before and don't care. They do not care. So, as offended as I am by this, I wish Democrats would stop pretending we'll get through to a certain voting block by assuming they can possibly see it our way just because we think it's a big fucking deal.

Folks, if these people could see things our way, they'd be Democrats.

She's Gonna Run, But Not To Win

POSTED BY JHW22

I have said all along that Sarah Palin will run for President. I have never believed she really wants to be President but she knows that the further down the road she gets, the more money she'll make. This article makes me think she is settling in for as long as possible.

I suspect most Republicans are holding off on their announcements to force her hand. She has said she will only run if other worthy candidates don't. We're watching a game of chicken here and I think the change in her foreign policy messaging means she'll announce soon.

In fact, I think she'll announce on May 21, when some think the world is going to end -- and then on May 22, she'll regret her decision when we're all still here.

Joe Crowley: Speechless

Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY) used to be my Congressman before I moved to New Jersey last year.
This is some pretty good stuff.

Intentions of Factual/Non-Factual Statements and Pap Smears at Walgreens

The assault on Planned Parenthood during the government shutdown threat was pretty appalling. Senator Jon Kyl spoke on the Senate floor extolling the virtues of defunding Planned Parenthood as over 90% of their services are abortions. They are not, of course. The number is 3%. But what does an 87% difference matter when you're trying to make a point? What difference does it make that the Hyde Amendment prevents federal funding to be used for abortions when you're trying to demonize yet another institution that provides sorely needed services for the poor and lower income among us?

When asked about his statement, the Kyl office offered this response:

CNN, to its credit, sought an explanation from the senator about the glaring error. CNN anchor TJ Holmes told viewers:

"We did call [Kyl's] office trying to ask what he was talking about there. And I just want to give it you verbatim here. It says, 'his remark was not intended to be a factual statement, but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, a organization that receives millions of dollars in taxpayer funding, does subsidize abortions.'"

Oh, well in that case, say whatever you want on the floor of the Senate from now on, Mr. Kyl. We'll just assume that any noise coming from your cake hole from now on is a blatant lie.

Here's Stephen Colbert having fun at the expense of Kyl as well as Fox & Friends who think, why should you get health care screenings at Planned Parenthood when you can get pap smears and breast examinations at you local Walgreens? No. You can't make this shit up.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Pap Smears at Walgreens
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

UPDATE (7:30pm): Jon Stewart's take:

The Daily Show - Countdown to the Next Countdown - Jon Kyl's Planned Parenthood Statistics
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

False Equivalency Equals Faulty Equation

POSTED BY JHW22

Equivalency means two things being almost equal if not exact. Therefore, if I say an apple is fruit and a banana is fruit, I am making a correct equivalency. However, if I say a Red Delicious apple is the same as a banana some could argue a false equivalency because a Red Delicious apple is red, whereas a banana is yellow. Someone else may say, yes, but they are still fruit. Then someone else could say some apples are yellow and bananas are yellow and they are both fruit so they are the same. Then someone else could say, yes but bananas are only yellow when they aren’t green or brown.

See, when it comes to fruit, you can’t have a discussion without someone having an alternate version that isn’t false but which is different from the opponent’s position.

If I say that trees are green someone can say, not all are green and not all green trees are green all the time.

If I say boys are more active than girls someone will provide examples of hyper-active girls and sedate boys.

If I say clouds are all the same someone will point out the various types.

So when I say that some people on the left have used vitriolic language, I should not be accused of making a false equivalency because it’s a far more nuanced issue than fruit. Hell, even that statement could be argued as a false equivalency.

Now, if I point out 3 instances of when the left has used questionable hyperbole while I also point out 30 cases where the right has done it, I should not be accused of making a false equivalency. I have not said 3 = 30. I have said they each share a digit, they are each numbers. There are many similarities between 3 and 30 but they are not equal and pointing out the similarities is not a statement that they are equal.

I have been a part of and have witnessed two conversations since the tragedy in Tucson. I am going to paraphrase both conversations and show why I think the “false equivalency” argument is a waste of real opportunity to get everyone, regardless of their party’s eagerness or opposition to use vitriol in the debate, to stop using it – period.

Conversation A:

Republican: “Sarah Palin did not incite hate. If you think she did, what do you have to say about the time Obama said, ‘Don’t take a knife to a gunfight’, huh?”

Democrat: “Looking back, I’d have to say I wish he hadn’t used that line. Even though it’s an old cliché, I wish we weren’t using any language that implies aggression or violence. I pledge not to use that language and to reject it if anyone in my party uses it. Now, do YOU reject that language used in your party?”

Republican: “Yes, I reject that language in my party.”

Conversation B:

Republican: “Sarah Palin did not incite hate. If you think she did, what do you have to say about the time Obama said, ‘Don’t take a knife to a gunfight’, huh?”

Democrat: “There is no comparison between the left and the right here. The right has had far more vitriol and has created this atmosphere since a black man became President. So, no, there is nothing vitriolic about his statement. No one in MY party has called for shootings or ‘second amendment remedies’ or for people to ‘reload’ or be ‘armed and dangerous’. So no, MY party isn’t part of the problem.”

Republican: “Oh, I see. MY party is racist and violent because we’re white and want to protect our rights and hate the way the government is destroying our country. Your party can say whatever it wants and use whatever words and images it wants because you when you use it it doesn’t mean anything. But when MY party uses it, we’re telling crazy people to kill people. Only crazy people are on the right, is that what you’re saying?”

Democrat: “No, there are crazy people on the left but our crazies don’t take guns to speeches and don’t kill people.”

Republican: “Well this guy was a liberal. Look at the books he read.”

Democrat: “What he read doesn’t mean he was a liberal. He shot a Democrat who Sarah Palin put a target on in campaign rhetoric.”

Republican: “Two of the victims who died were Republicans.”

Democrat: “The shooter couldn’t have known that.”

Republican: “And Sarah Palin couldn’t have known some crazy would misconstrue what she meant.”

Democrat: “We warned of this. She could have known because we raised this point over and over.”

Republican: “See, you wanted this to happen just so you could say, ‘I told you so’.”

In Conversation A, the Democrat acknowledged the FRACTION of poor choices by the Democratic party and the conversation moved forward.

In Conversation B, the Democrat decided that acknowledging a fraction was conceding a false equivalency. That conversation is still spiraling into an abyss of nothing.

EDIT: Here is the transcript from Obama's Tucson Memorial speech. All he said is what I meant to say.

Doing The People's Work

House Republicans took another step Friday toward a repeal of last year's sweeping health care overhaul, as the lower chamber approved a key rule allowing a repeal bill to proceed to a vote.

Friday's procedural vote, largely along party lines, set the stage for a symbolic showdown over the signature Democratic law of the last Congress, under which parents can keep children on their health plans until the age of 26, insurers are barred from denying service due to preexisting conditions, Medicaid funding is dramatically expanded and some 30 million uninsured Americans are projected to receive coverage by 2019.

And then the Weeper of the House called a recess for the day at 12:30pm. You know, because it's getaway day and there are planes to catch and fund raisers to attend.

Constitutionally Supported?

POSTED BY JHW22

Soooo.... apparently a new House of Representatives rule requires Representatives to provide proof in each proposed bill that the bill is supported by some part of the Constitution. Yep, they insist that each bill have supporting evidence that it's Constitutional. Cool. I guess.

Homework assignment: find the part in the Constitution that says Congress can rename Post Offices. Alright, fine, you don't need to do any homework. The Constitution does say that Congress will "establish Post Offices and post Roads" in Article 1, Section 8 but that one statement barely seems substantial enough to validate the hundreds of renaming bills that are introduced every Congress.

Now, look, I don't have a problem with a post office being named after a fallen member of our armed services or a firefighter who died in the Twin Towers. I don't have a problem with that. I just think it's funny that the Republicans created a new rule just to pander to the teabaggers that will in effect, limit the amount of pandering they can do by naming a building after someone.

On a slight tangent, I keep hearing (like in the ABC link above) that the reading of the Constitution by the new House is a "first." Yet, that seems odd to me and I swear Keith Olbermann said a bit ago that it has been done twice before. I tend to believe Olbermann on this. So, this goes back to my running annoyances and distrusts of the media -- why must they report with such certainty something they likely haven't bothered to fact-check? The talking points from the media can be as nauseating as the talking points from politicians.

Cowardice and Courage

Here are the 5 Democrats who voted to block the DREAM Act:

Max Baucus, Montana
Kay Hagan, North Carolina
Ben Nelson, Nebraska
Mark Pryor, Arkansas
Jon Tester, Montana

Credit where credit is due, Republicans voting in favor:

Bob Bennett, Utah
Dick Lugar, Indiana
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska

For those who don't know, the DREAM Act is "a bill that would create a path to citizenship for certain illegal immigrant students who came to the United States as children, completed two years of college or military service and met other requirements including passing a criminal background check."

So basically, they can fight and die for us, but let them earn citizenship? Nah.

And They Want To Be Taken Seriously

Markos Moulitsas at the Daily Kos just tweeted about a new Republican poll he's still scouring over.  Here are a couple of stats via Twitter:

Just got back big poll of 2,000 Republicans. Gotta digest it, but 39% of them want Obama impeached.
~ 63% think Obama is a socialist, only 42% believe he was born in US, 21% think ACORN stole 2008 elections.
~ Actually, on the "ACORN stealing 2008 election for Obama" Q, 21% say yes, 55% say "not sure"
~ 53% think Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama.
~ 23% want to secede from US.
~ 73% think gay men and women shouldn't be allowed to teach in public schools
~ 31% want contraceptives outlawed

This is a national poll taken by 2,000 Republicans. And this party wants to be taken seriously. But I suppose this is what happens when you watch nothing but Fox News Channel all day and Glenn Beck is your hero.

I'm sure he'll wrap this up in a post. Stay tuned.

Quote of the Day

"It feels like all the people that want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans." - Jon Stewart during his interview of Lou Dobbs

Douchebags of the Week: It's a TIE!

I never thought it would come to this, but there I was thinking about who I would win Blog-O-Mania's Douchebag of the Week honors. And contrary to popular belief, this is a dubious honor.

Being that the recovery bill in the Senate was debated over for days, there were many douchebags to choose from this week, but finally someone emerged from the pack. As I was about to make my selection, I received further news of immense douchebaggery that could not go without notice. So I have decided to call this one a tie between Senator John Thune (R-SD) and Congressman Peter Hoekstra (R-MI).


Senator John Thune wanted to give us an explanation of how much $1 Trillion actually is. Not in a mathematical sense, but in a physical sense. He spent a good two minutes of what was probably a 3 to 5 minute time frame on the floor of the Senate, complete with graphic charts and an easel paid for by you and me, Mr. & Mrs. American Taxpayer, to illustrate his point.



I have another one for Senator Thune. Senator, if the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority were to transport $1 trillion in Lockheed C-130 Hercules Military airlift planes to Iraq in $12 billion shipments, plastic wrapped on pallets, it would take 36,893 planes. If you lined up those planes nose to tail, they would stretch the length of 13,773 football fields. Since Senator Thune likes to use nonsensical illustrations to prove nothing, I thought I'd hand him another.

As if that douchebag weren't enough, we have Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) who thought is was a great idea to Twitter the whereabouts of he and his fellow congressmen during a secret trip to Baghdad, complete with updates every few hours. This is the same Peter Hoekstra who is a ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, you know, the people who are the gatekeepers of our nation's deepest secrets, those who are protecting us from the evildoers. But publicly divulging information of a clandestine trip to the green zone in an unstable middle eastern country putting himself, his delegation and our state secrets in danger seemed like a hell of an idea.

Senator John Thune and Congressman Peter Hoekstra: Douchebags of the Week!

Why Ann Coulter Is Still Insane (Yet another chapter in a never ending series.)

Poor Matt Lauer. He's got to deal with crazy Ann Coulter after she was rescheduled on The Today Show. For the second straight day, the conservative crack ho battles with herself in trying to get a word in egdewise, interrupting herself in an attempt to predict when Lauer would interrupt her.

I think she may have had an issue when younger of constantly being interrupted, or constantly told to shut her cakehole at the dinner table, to the point of refusing to be interrupted and being paranoid about it in adulthood.

Matt Lauer, like most other interviewers trying to tackle the impossible, just gives up on attepting to have a real discourse or debate and just reads the questions from his cards without a care about the answer, hoping Harry Smith would run onto the set and stab him in the temple with the pen he was contemplating using on himself only yesterday.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy