Frustrated

Okay, I had to sleep on this one - I purposely avoided any news on my television machine this morning and averted my eyes from any headlines online and in print as to not cloud my judgment or contaminate my thoughts. I wanted to take a step back after a pseudo-rant in a post outlining yesterday's events, venting on Twitter and debating with Twitter friends, and try to explain how I feel about them.

Last night I received an e-mail from Obama for America titled, "Frustrated."

Today I asked for a joint session of Congress where I will lay out a clear plan to get Americans back to work. Next week, I will deliver the details of the plan and call on lawmakers to pass it.

Whether they will do the job they were elected to do is ultimately up to them...

...It's been a long time since Congress was focused on what the American people need them to be focused on.

I know that you're frustrated by that. I am, too.

He then asked me to stand with him, which I did, and asked for a donation, which I didn't give.

You see, the President is right. I am frustrated. But this time there's more than a little frustration to go around on both sides. And I'm not normally a "both sides" guy.

Earlier in the day, the White House announced that they were finally making a highly anticipated speech to lay out a jobs plan for the struggling economy. For months, the petulant Boehner and the rest of the spoiled brats in the GOP cried, "Where are the jobs?" like a playground taunt. They swept into office in November of 2010 on the issue of "jobs, jobs, jobs" and have done absolutely nothing on that front, pivoting on a dime and making deficit reduction during a horrific recession their primary goal and doing anything and everything, including holding the debt ceiling hostage and causing a downgrade of the American economy by S & P in the process.

So here was the announcement. And the White House chose the first day that Congress is back in session. It's also the same date as the scheduled GOP Primary Debate at the Reagan Library. Now don't misunderstand. This wasn't a decision made willy-nilly. This wasn't some random "idiot staffer" throwing a dart at a calendar, as one tweeter tried to suggest. These things are known well in advance and coordination with 535 members of Congress, with major news outlets and networks are all planned. And I thought it was a brilliant strategy politically. Put the GOP between a rock and a hard place - make them choose. Do you care more about one of your many upcoming GOP debates, or are you being a serious party and really care about jobs for America despite your actions to the contrary? Perfect plan.

And then the unbelievable happened. Boehner refused the President of the United States his request for a joint session. He showed his hand - a jobs plan that he has been wailing about for months could wait another day.

FUCK YOU, BOEHNER! I thought. If you don't think this is of the utmost importance, fine. Let the President take his address to the American people from behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office. Show the dichotomy, plain for all of America to see. A president who cares about the unemployed against the GOP whose primary stated goal is making Obama a one-term president. Except the president wasn't so resolute.

The Obama email was time stamped at 10:38pm, about an hour after another "compromise" in which the President chose a specific date, September 7th, for an important joint session of Congress to address the nation's job issue, and Speaker of the House John Boehner refused the date, an unprecedented move and one that was most likely motivated more by a GOP primary debate conflict that same night rather than the House schedule, along with some Rush Limbaugh advice. Boehner suggested one night later, September 8th. So the two men talked. And the "compromise?" Or what passes for "compromise" nowadays? President Obama will give his address to a joint session of Congress on September 8th. All within a couple of hours, President Obama acquiesced yet again to Boehner and the GOP. And then he asked me for money.

And within minutes, there was the spin. On one side: "Obama caved again." On the other: "Obama is the only adult in the room." My initial reaction was the former, not the latter. Every once in a while when you're the only adult in the room, the spoiled brat needs a spanking. I'm still waiting for that spanking. And. It's. Fucking. Frustrating.

Now logically, sure, it makes sense that people would come to the defense of the President with the "adult" angle. The Party of No proves their moniker once again. The rancorous GOP shows they refuse to agree with the President about anything to show their extremist base they won't budge. John Boehner is at fault for putting party and politics ahead of the country. I get it. But I'm sorry, I can't turn on a dime that quickly. I can't call the choosing of the initial date great political strategy and within hours dismiss it as, eh, it's just a date. And I'm not going to let other people use that excuse either. Because it wasn't just a date. It was chosen specifically by the White House as a shot across the bow and before the battle began, there was a retreat.

And let's not pretend that it's insignificant. In the grand scheme of things, a specific date isn't the issue. It's about a continuing, troubling pattern of capitulation. There is no such thing as compromise anymore. There is no 50/50 meeting of the minds. From the public option, to the threat of government shutdown in the budget deal, to the threat of government default in the debt ceiling hostage negotiations, there has been no meeting in the middle. How many times will the President draw a line in the sand and then walk away from it? Unfortunately, optics matter. Spin matters. And to me, this just looks bad. That is why I'm frustrated. And I'm allowed to be frustrated.

I'll vote for President Obama. I'll contribute to his campaign. I'll work at the local campaign office when I can. I'll proudly wear my Obama t-shirt and display my lawn sign. But I'm allowed to be pissed off every once in a while.

So now the date is set for Thursday, September 8th, coinciding with the NFL season opener. I don't have to remind readers here that the majority of the country doesn't follow politics like we do. They're not wonks or cable news junkies and probably couldn't name the Secretary of State if asked. But they loves them some football. How many potential viewers will be lost by this move? I have a feeling it will be a significant number. Yes, we'll watch it because that's what we do. But on Friday, ask the average Joe Six Pack if he watched President Obama's joint session of Congress. See what answer you get.

My good friend and co-blogger Jennifer wrote a post last night using a "ball in the dirt" baseball analogy and comparing the President to a catcher controlling a ball thrown in the dirt to induce the batter to swing at a bad pitch and miss or ground out weakly. And that's a good analogy. But the problem is that in this situation, President Obama wasn't the catcher. He was the pitcher. He pitched a plan, a date for the speech. But batter Boehner didn't swing at it. He took the pitch for a ball. He then beared down at the plate and it was the perfect opportunity for Obama to throw one in high and tight; give him a little chin music. Instead, Obama didn't even challenge him.

Boehner walked.

Balls in the Dirt

POSTED BY JHW22

I am NOT a baseball fan AT ALL. But one day I was listening to NPR and had no other choice than to listen. Normally, I like to listen to NPR but this day, they were playing an interview with a baseball player. Ugh. B.O.R.I.N.G. But as I listened, it was anything but boring. It was fascinating and I learned a lot. I like strategy. I enjoy analysis. And this interview was a former catcher, Brad Ausmus, explaining his job from an analytical perspective. In that moment I felt I could like baseball as long as I didn't have to watch it.

And as the interview went on, the catcher said something about balls in the dirt that gave me what Oprah would call, "An a-ha moment". This discussion of balls in the dirt became THE analogy for how I view President Obama. So, I never thought I'd ever make a baseball/politics analogy, but read this, think about it and understand that with all the cries for Obama to "grow a pair", he has a big ol' pair and he knows how to control them.

DAVIES: Now, you mentioned balls in the dirt. They're a terrific weapon for your pitcher, I mean to get a batter lunging at a ball that's dropping out of the strike zone. And so you get a lot of ground balls and a lot of strikes that way, and that's good for your team. But there's also the risk that that ball can get past you, the catcher, and a base runner can advance.

You were known for being good at stopping balls in the dirt. Any particular tricks you used?

Mr. AUSMUS: There's nothing - no trick to it. And really the important thing about keeping balls in front of you - this is how I often explain it. If I was a basketball player, and somebody took a jump shot, and I swatted the ball into the stands, blocking a shot, everyone might ooh and ahh, but the truth of the matter is, is that team gets the ball back because it went out of bounds. So it doesn't do us any good.

That is very similar to catching. You can't just block the ball, you have to control the ball, because if you block it and it ricochets more than five feet away from you, the runner's going to advance anyway, and it hasn't done you any good.

So my whole theory on blocking was controlling the ball, kind of catching the ball with my chest protector and keeping it close to me, because if it went too far, we're in a worse predicament.

Now, did you see the analogy within the analogy? The catcher made a reference to basketball. He said:

If I was a basketball player, and somebody took a jump shot, and I swatted the ball into the stands, blocking a shot, everyone might ooh and ahh, but the truth of the matter is, is that team gets the ball back because it went out of bounds. So it doesn't do us any good.

President Obama is a smart player. But because he doesn't perform the dramatic, spectacular, ahhh-inducing, crowd-to-their-feet plays on a regular basis, he's called weak and naive.

On the contrary. This President controls the ball to save the play. And THAT is why I support this President and humble myself (which is a hard thing to do) by reminding myself that this stay-at-home mom who likes to blog and Tweet about politics, doesn't know shit about baseball, basketball or politics when compared to the great Barack Obama.

It's All In The Timing - UPDATED

For months now, all we've been hearing from the Republican Party is a mocking tone led by Speaker of the House, John "Big Gavel" Boehner. "Where are the jobs?" Boehner would ask/mock/yell any time he took a podium within earshot of network microphones. All you need to do is take a look at Boehner's tweets to see that his constant harping about any Obama plan and the damage that it would do, adding the modifying "job killing" phrase to every other sentence and even a couple of bills, and the transparency is obvious. Nevermind that the GOP ran on "jobs, jobs, jobs" in 2010 and as of this writing, the Republican led House of Representatives has not passed one single jobs bill.

And for weeks now, there's been nothing but whining and moaning from the GOP on wanting an economic and jobs plan from President Obama, regardless of the fact that it's the House that ultimately controls the pursestrings and creates and passes economic legislation.

Well, they wanted a jobs plan and now President Obama is going to give it to them. So it happens that they requested a joint session of Congress to reveal said plan on the same night as a Republican primary debate at the Reagan Library on September 7th. ...Oops.

While it may be a thumb in the eye to the GOP, the fact of the matter is that September 7th is also the first day that Congress is back in session after a five week recess. Yes, they were off for the entire month of August while some whined about the President's 10 day vacation. So it makes absolute sense to make the address on the first day of school. Is it also a 'fuck you' to Republicans who've been badgering him about a jobs plan for months? Probably, although they'd never admit to it. But now the White House has put the GOP in a tough spot. If they're so eager to hear the President's plan, they'll have to decide to agree to the joint session and prioritize what's important. They'll have to deal with the optics of a real President giving an important address regarding the nation's most pressing issue while the wannabes squawk about their one idea yet again: deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy as job creation.

But so far, all we've heard is more whining.

ADDING... Gawker has called this move "the most gratuitously -- and joyously! -- dickish move of his presidency." Well, when in Rome...

UPDATE I (6:55pm): Well, now we know where John Boehner and the GOP's priorities lie.

House Speaker John Boehner announced Wednesday that he would reject a request from President Obama for a national address before a joint-session of Congress.

So much for the jobs crisis, huh?

UPDATE II (9:35pm): I'm disgusted.

President Barack Obama agreed late Wednesday to delay a planned jobs speech to a joint session of Congress by one day after House Speaker John Boehner objected to the date the White House originally sought.

That one day delay, September 8th, is opening night of the NFL. As a regular reader of this blog just said to me, "Fucking clueless. Even I will be watching the game. If he loses the election, it won't be because of the economy. The base will just see him as a capitulator. I hear it every fucking day."

I have to admit I'm feeling the frustration as well. It's obvious this particular Congress doesn't give a shit about even the appearance of giving this particular president a modicum of respect. And if I'm being honest, if Obama doesn't demand it, why should the GOP bother when they know they can roll him?

I'm fucking disgusted.

ADDING... Look, overall I think I'm just venting my increasing frustration with the lack of respect shown to the President from the other side. I'm tired of Boehner and Cantor and the GOP thinking they are on equal footing with the President of the United States. Never in the history of this country has such hubris been displayed by the opposition party against the Commander in Chief. Refusing a joint session of Congress to a sitting president has never happened. But what I'm projecting is what I think most of the country is projecting; the majority of the country that aren't political junkies and view this peripherally.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope the general population looks at this scenario and will see and realize that the GOP will say no to everything the President suggests, even a date for a jobs speech the GOP have been badgering for, for months. I hope they realize that the GOP is unreasonable and can't even acquiesce to a date requested by their President. I hope this is more Obama ju-jitsu and hope that the polls reflect that. I pray to the FSM that I'm wrong.

But I still can't shake my original point: why did the White House pick this particular date if they weren't going to stick to it? It looks wishy-washy and politically it'll be spun as such. There would be no controversy had they chosen Tuesday night (most if not all of Congress would be back in DC by then) or Thursday night even though they'd be fighting for ratings against opening night of the football season. So again, why did they choose the same night as the GOP debate?

Quote of the Day

“Instead of doing everything he can to help Virginians and people on the East Coast recover from the loss of life and property that Irene dealt over the weekend, Cantor is parading around on Fox News talking about how he will hold federal aid hostage unless he gets to slash the budget. Anyone willing to play political games while people are suffering is unfit to be a congressman.”

~David Mills, executive director of the Democratic Party of Virginia.

Pat Buchanan's White Oppression!

This must stop. For far too long, the white race as been at a disadvantage. Just take a look at affirmative action and see the result; qualified white males being passed over for a job that an equally qualified minority can do. Don't believe me? Just ask Pat Buchanan. Here he is on the Laura Ingraham Radio Show.

Buchanan: "Now, these folks [meaning minorities], these appear to be inordinately overrepresented of one group. And I've gone through for my new book and you find out that the federal civil service has affirmative action basically for women, for Hispanics, and for African-Americans, but none for white males who are diminishing dramatically. So what you're going, is you're going back to pre-Chester Arthur as I wrote in my column, going back to the federal service as a huge patronage thing that the party in power rewards its friends, rewards the voters that put it into office, and the problem is that Republicans do zero about it."

Yes! That's the problem! Republicans do nothing about repealing affirmative action. They're too busy defunding Medicaid, restricting Planned Parenthood family planning services, and railroading organizations like ACORN. How much time can they possibly have left for asserting the rights of white males?

Of course, Pat Buchanan is completely full of shit. Here's a handy little chart of the "dramatic diminishment" of white males in civil service employment:



See? White males hold 56.1% of the federal civilian workforce and whites overall (including women) hold 67.7% of the jobs. Shouldn't they have more? That 17.6% for blacks is just too much, don't you think? But if Pat Buchanan is so dependent on the numbers, perhaps he should explain why with a current unemployment rate of 9.1%, unemployment among Whites is 8.1% while it is 15.9% for African-Americans. Maybe he thinks it's laziness? Or maybe as he believes that the federal civil employment ratio is disproportionate in favor of blacks as he infers in his column, he should explain why the US prison population of non-Hispanic blacks is 39.4% when the total population of blacks in America is 12.6%. Are they just born criminals?

Yeah, those white males really have it hard to not be included in affirmative action.



(H/T Bob Cesca)

Music Break! MVPleez

A good friend of the Mrs. and mine has been writing and co-creating music videos, the first of which just officially launched.

Enjoy.

Energy Sec Steven Chu Explains Climate Change So Well, Even a Republican Can Understand It

So simple a six-year old... or a Republican, can understand it.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu said he was "saddened" by the political debate over climate change, and that political leaders didn't understand it. I'm guessing the saddness comes from knowing that they really do understand, at least the smart ones, but aren't willing to lose an ideological wedge issue.



(Via Think Progress)

Voice from Vermont

POSTED BY JHW22

My friend in Vermont posted this Facebook status today and it's important that we realize what Irene has done and help Vermont recover:

This is really bad. Farmers' whose fields were flooded have to destroy the crops due to possible contamination, and are forbidden from planting anything intended for human consumption for 60 days. After the flooding and lingering cold weather this spring, this should just about finish them off. When farmers are screwed, we're all screwed. I'm scared.

Wilkerson's Scathing Cheney Review on Democracy Now

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell, was interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now about Dick Cheney's new memoir (video to follow). Wilkerson proceeds to give a scathing review not so much of Cheney's book, but Cheney himself. He calls the release of Cheney's book in the wake of Hurricane Irene, the devastation in Vermont from the storm, and the most recent soldier deaths in Afghanistan "singularly insignificant," described Cheney's 'exploding heads all over Washington' line as akin to "grocery store tabloid" and says "I simply don't recognize Dick Cheney anymore" not as a descriptive measure of how he's changed, but that he doesn't recognize him as a person (my take).

Wilkerson: "...The Vice-President seems to find fault with... Condi Rice, ...with Powell, with [Richard] Armitige, with the president himself. The only person Cheney does not seem to find fault with is Cheney. I think we have a word for that kind of person; I won't use it here on television, but I think Mr. Cheney's view is totally, utterly, completely Mr. Cheney's view. I doubt there are very many people in America, other than the cheerleading squad for people like Cheney, who like torture and the like, who'll even read his book, or if they do read it, they'll read it in order to increase their revulsion of him rather than their respect for him. And that's a pity because he is a former vice-president...

...This is a book written out of fear; fear that one day someone will 'Pinochet' Dick Cheney."

After a quick call from Glenn Greenwald charaterizing some of Cheney's actions during his administration as criminal, Wilkerson agreed wholeheartedly, said that he would be willing to testify against Cheney should it ever come to trial, and would also take any punishment he is due as part of that administration.

Must Reads

Jonathan Capehart: Cantor Wrong. Obama Clear on Raising Taxes on Wealthy

The Rude Pundit: Someone Should Smack Marco Rubio with a History Stick

E.J. Dionne: Obama Can’t Win for Winning in Libya

Harold Meyerson: The GOP Will Raise Taxes — on the Middle Class and Working Poor

Timothy Egan: Stop Waiting for Superman

President Obama's Weekly Address - August 27, 2011

Coming Together to Remember

Submitted Without Comment

(via GottaLaff)

Facts Schmacts!

Especially when it comes to climate change.



Need I say more?

(Via Bob Cesca)

Batten Down the Hatches!

I've lived in New York City all my life up until a year ago. I've witnessed Hurricane Floyd. I vividly remember Hurricane Gloria. I've never witnessed a pre-emptive closing of NYC Mass Transit (subways and buses) and New Jersey Transit. I've never seen a mandatory evacuation of lower Manhattan. This one is serious. But hey, better safe than sorry. And I'm off for the weekend to batten down the hatches at home. Keep safe, everyone.

Will Cantor Look for Cuts Elsewhere to Pay for His District Disaster?

Hey, remember what Eric Cantor said about federal disaster relief funds after Joplin, Missouri was practically destroyed by a tornado? Let me refresh your memory:

The No. 2 House Republican said that if Congress doles out additional money to assist in the aftermath of natural disasters across the country, the spending may need to be offset.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said “if there is support for a supplemental, it would be accompanied by support for having pay-fors to that supplemental."

That was way, way long ago... too far for the MSM to possibly remember. Three whole months ago.
Well, now that the epicenter of the east coast earthquake landed smack dab in the middle of his district in Mineral, Virginia, are we going to see him look for "pay-fors" to help offset the cost of federal relief?

[Cantor] said that a federal process is underway to assess the damage and address residents and businesses that may not have earthquake insurance.

Sorry, Sparky. Why should we shell out federal money to help people that weren't smart enough to carry earthquake insurance while living over a fault line? Oh yeah, that's right. Because we're fucking human beings who look out for our fellow man. And I'm completely fine with that. But why the hell does Cantor insist on Tea Party populist bullshit like this?

...Eric Cantor (R-VA) will extend his requirement that federal disaster relief be paid for by cutting spending elsewhere in the budget to Hurricane Irene.

“We aren’t going to speculate on damage before it happens, period,” his spokesperson Laena Fallon emails. “But, as you know, Eric has consistently said that additional funds for federal disaster relief ought to be offset with spending cuts.”

I called him a punk then and I'm calling him a punk now. The people of VA-7 must be so happy they voted for this douchebag to look out for their best interests, huh?

Tweet of the Day

Joke of the Day

Come on! Who's yanking my chain?

Joe Wurzelbacher, better known as Joe the Plumber, is considering a run against U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur in 2012, according to Republican Party sources.

Jon Stainbrook, chairman of the Lucas County Republican Party, said there is "high-level interest in the national Republican Party" in a potential Wurzelbacher candidacy.

"We are encouraging Joe to run," Mr. Stainbrook said. "He hasn't made any official decision yet."

HAHAAHAAHAHAHHAAA!
If his supposed candidacy goes as well as his book sales, there's nothing to worry about.

The Jesus Agenda

POSTED BY JHW22

About a week and a half ago Desert Crone posted her take on Liberals and Christians. I agreed with a lot of what she said even though I am an atheist. So, as an atheist, I wanted to try to say the same thing, but with a different perspective. One that I formed over 30+ years as what I call, a Christian-magnet.

My parents raised me sans religion. They didn't raise me to not believe in God or to believe in God. In fact, I don't remember them really teaching or encouraging me much of anything when it came to religion and I am truly grateful for that. They raised me to be a clean slate to choose or believe what I alone am able to believe. The only true way to believe is to get there on your own.

But I had extended family and friends who had a huge impact on me when it came to forging what I did not believe. And for years, these people impacted in me in very negative ways. Without going into the drama and rants I would have loved to spew 10 or 15 years ago, I will summarize my early experiences this way: Christians are assholes.

That's what I came to believe. I couldn't believe how hateful, judgmental and hypocritical they were. WHY would I want to be part of their religion when I didn't like, agree with or even care to comprehend? Why would I want to be a fellow asshole?

Sadly, I thought this of some people in my life who I really should love.

Then, in college, I became friends with two wonderful women. They didn't try to make me something I wasn't or believe something I couldn't. Oh, they prayed for me to find whatever, but they didn't push. We would talk about religion and in our conversations, I felt a sincere desire to understand, not to believe, but to really understand them. Not their religion. I wanted to understand what made them want to believe. Although they didn't make a believer out of me, they did soften me to my hardened opinion of Christians as assholes.

And then I met my husband. My husband was raised in a liberal-minded, open-hearted Christian family. He doesn't consider himself a Christian, but if you knew him, you'd know he projects that which is ideally a Christian life - minus the acceptance of Christ as his savior. My husband, and his family became the new symbol of what a Christian can and should be. Seriously, his grandma, parents, uncles, aunt, cousins. They ALL walk the walk. And this stopped me in my tracks. I couldn't believe there were people who called themselves Christians, who led lives I could respect and they actually made the connection between their beliefs AND the ways they lived their lives EVERY DAY. Seriously. They didn't preach and judge me or anyone who didn't believe the same as them. Instead, they lived an example in a way I'd never imagined.

My husband's family was the first family I ever met who really lived what they said they believed.

And because of them, I really had to stop seeing Christians as assholes.

Since then, I have known many Christians who impress me. They support issues and causes and people that is perfectly in-line with their beliefs. None have converted me. I have no desire or need for a savior or a Heaven or forgiveness or any of that. But because of these wonderful Christians, I have worked hard at not labeling Christians as assholes. Not as a whole anyway.

That brings me to the distinction, that to me is quite simple. I love many Christians. And I despise many who call themselves Christians.

Jesus gave humans a to do list, or an agenda. It's not a hard list, or an impossible list. It doesn't require perfection. It requires simple tasks and thoughts. For someone to follow the agenda set forth by Jesus, one simply treats others well, cares for them, aides them. Easy peasy. The whole, "I'm not perfect, I'm forgiven" attitude is moot because Jesus didn't expect us to walk on water or perform miracles. Never did. He only "gives us what we can handle". Right? I mean, seriously, Jesus didn't ask us to be Him. He only set forth an agenda and hoped we'd follow it.

But when people who claim their principles are based on the Jesus agenda, put the Jesus agenda aside when it comes time to choosing elected leaders, when they choose a person who makes a career out of NOT doing the things on the Jesus agenda, and when they decide that there is a separate political set of principles that trumps their Jesus agenda, they essentially tell Jesus he's less important. YET, Jesus clearly states to render unto Caesar. And He never says, "Help the poor UNLESS..." or "Feed the hungry EXCEPT..." Jesus NEVER gave Christians an excuse to put His agenda on hold because of who was being asked to execute that agenda. Jesus NEVER gave Christians the option to not help people if helping meant helping via the government. He never said that if the government wants to help the poor people, using tax dollars, that Christians can or should choose otherwise. In fact, He makes it rather clear that Christians should be helping their neighbor despite any excuses.

So, that is why the many Christians I respect in my life tend to vote for liberal politicians, they support candidates who, using tax dollars or not, set policies that match the Jesus agenda.

When a Conservative politician says Americans can help the needy on their own dime, on their own time, and to leave government out of it, they say that the Jesus agenda is irrelevant. And that's where the irony/hypocrisy/bastardization comes in: when a party wants to put their faith INTO their politics then purposely eliminates the exact principles that define what they SAY Christians are about -- the teachings of Christ, the Jesus agenda -- that's the root of all their evil.

So when a Christian looks at candidates in an election year, they need to have their Jesus agenda handy. They need to look at which candidate supports policies that allow the Jesus agenda to be followed. They need to put away the concern over who will pay for it or how it will get done and just ask themselves which candidate's platform looks like the Jesus agenda. And they need to separate the number of times a candidate says "Jesus" or "God" or "pray". Because the agenda is less about the church a person goes to, or how vocal they are in their faith. The Jesus agenda is about acting, not preaching, it's about helping, not hindering. The Jesus agenda is about simple tasks that each of us can do and that each of us can elect others to do.

I am proud to say that I know more and more of the Christians who actually vote the Jesus agenda. And although I don't accept Jesus as my savior, I think his agenda is a pretty damn good one.

EDIT: After a good discussion with a friend, one who is a true moderate and a Christian, I posed this thought to Republicans

Republicans need to ask themselves if they are putting aside that which makes them Christian just to vote for that which makes them Republicans.

Welfare Drug Queens?

POSTED BY JHW22

I am just shocked when I hear, read, speak to people I consider compassionate liberals who support drug-testing for welfare recipients. Shocked. To me, it spits in the face of what we stand for as liberals. And worse, it means liberals have fallen for the Conservative trap of believing in a false frame. Suckers. Damn it.

For those of you who agree with the welfare recipient drug testing, my beefs are that the premise is based on a lot of false assumptions: falsehood that there is an overwhelming number of people on drugs getting welfare, cost-saving fallacies, and a misunderstanding of how much money these people actually get each month.

So far, in Florida, the testing is a waste of time, money and energy all at the expense of some people's dignity. It's hard enough to need welfare assistance. It's another thing to have a big chunk of your fellow Americans believe the lie that you're some druggie taking advantage of the system. Anyone who supports the drug testing, has believed one part of the big lie meant to convince you this is a good idea. And it just simply isn't. It's all a political agenda to make you focus on the people who have less of an effect on our economic woes than the people who actually DO affect our financial health in this country. As we humiliate drug-free welfare recipients, we allow multimillionaires to pay a lower tax rate than their cleaning ladies. And yet people like ME are accused of declaring a class warfare.

Seriously, think about who has the greatest effect on our country's fiscal health. It's NOT the 2% of drug-using welfare recipients.

More MSM Seriousness

Another gem of a story from Politico. When I first read the headline, I thought I had inadvertently clicked on some TMZ or Star Magazine site.

If only President Obama had been behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office, the earthquake would never have happened.

He Can Do No Right

Look, I know that if you're a Republican, to agree with anything that President Obama has to offer is a political risk. I know that everyone in the GOP has pretty much taken the Mitch McConnell tact of making President Obama a one-term president as its main and major goal, even at the risk of US economic collapse. I know that the Republican Party likes to tout itself as the party of national security. But these latest comments from Republican Senator John McCain and his personal Renfield, Senator Lindsey Graham are absolutely laughable.

"Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Qaddafi," their statement reads, "but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower."

This statement comes from the same two Senators that were part of a delegation that considered selling nonlethal defense equipment to Gaddafi's Libya (with a little McCain bow to boot in his meeting with Gaddafi).

McCain wanted the US's "full weight" of the military airpower, and yet his own members of Congress were losing their shit just a few weeks ago, stomping their feet with a House vote to admonish the President for continuing America's role in the NATO operation and claiming a violation of the War Powers Act, and threatened to cut off funding for the operation. Does that mean that McCain and Graham would have been fine with a unilateral US strike against Libya with the "full weight" of our airpower had it only taken 89 days?

The bottom line is that the Republican Party has lost their "strong on defense" moniker and they don't like it.

The Obama administration was successful in taking out the Somali pirates that captured Captain Richard Phillips and held him hostage, but immediately afterward came the email smear campaign that the President was hesitant in authorizing lethal force.

President Obama made capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden a top priority as soon as he was sworn into  office and said so during the campaign. This was something George W. "Wanted Dead Or Alive" Bush couldn't bother with just six months after 9/11. Yet again, right wingers went to the Internet and created another smear email to claim something about which they knew nothing.

And now, with a war in Afghanistan and in the process of a methodical withdrawal from Iraq, and the President deciding to honor the US's obligation to NATO and the UN in the Libya conflict, and here are the Republicans making sure to criticize the widest range possible just to confirm they cover everything, from acting without Congressional authority, or berating Obama for letting France and England take the lead in the action, to now McCain and Graham whining about not acting quickly enough and that it took six months to ouster a dictator who held power for 42 years. Even the Wall Street Journal editorial page is praising the efforts while criticizing the the naysaying GOP.

The fighting continues in Tripoli, and Moammar Gadhafi still hasn't been captured, but the triumph of the U.S.-backed Libyan rebels seems to be only a matter of time. Though you wouldn't know it from the reaction at the Council on Foreign Relations or among some GOP Presidential candidates, this is a victory for freedom and U.S. national interests.

A dictator with American blood on his hands is about to be overthrown by a popular revolt invoking democratic principles. Not a single American has died in the effort, and the victory would not have been possible without U.S. air power, intelligence and targeting as part of NATO. A long-oppressed people now has a chance to chart a freer future, a fact that is clear from the rejoicing in Benghazi.

What would we prefer: That Gadhafi stay in power?

...Yet some of the same people who said we shouldn't help the rebels now want the U.N. to send "boots on the ground," including U.S. troops. It's not clear that the Libyans want or even need such help, especially from Americans, which could complicate their own nascent attempts at self-government.

...President Obama was right yesterday to urge the rebels to pursue "reconciliation." But America's foreign policy elites have also so far misjudged the rebels, who have shown impressive persistence and coordination in maintaining a six-month military campaign.

...One disappointment is the reluctance among Republicans to praise the rebel success, perhaps for fear it will somehow help Mr. Obama.

...U.S. intervention has succeeded in preventing a bloodbath in Benghazi and soon in deposing a long-time U.S. enemy who could have re-emerged as a terrorist sponsor.

Michele Bachmann, who played the al Qaeda tune, now looks partisan to a fault.

...The U.S. military is stretched at the current moment and we can't take sides in every civil war. But the Libyan intervention shows that when the cause is just and the means are available, the U.S. can make a moral and strategic difference.

U.S. support for the rebels won't be lost on a Middle East still undergoing its own upheavals, not least on the people and governments of Syria and Iran. NATO showed it will finish a military task it started, and soon Gadhafi will take his place with Saddam in the ranks of Arab despots who will terrorize their people no more.

I believe everyone has forgotten (including Michael Steele and the Morning Joe pundits this morning) that the initial intervention is Libya was a humanitarian one, with NATO acting on the information that Gaddafi was about to unleash hell on his own people in Benghazi.

And yet, President Obama can do no right. He doesn't even read the right books on vacation. I suppose he would have gotten a reprieve on the reading list criticism if he'd included Ayn Rand's ATLAS SHRUGGED and Rick Perry's FED UP!, both also works of fiction, by the way.

Comedy Break! Louis C.K.

Must Reads

Allison Samuels: The Black War Over Obama

Eric Dolan: Kathy Griffin asked Bachmann: 'Were you born a bigot?'

Warren Buffett: Stop Coddling the Super-Rich

Ben Smith & Jonathan Martin: Michele Bachmann's Bouncers: Unnecessary Roughness

Hadley Freeman: Proof of Republican 'Doublethink'

Jonathan Martin & Jake Sherman: Rick Perry’s Loose Lips Worry Hill Republicans

Allison Kilkenny: President Red Herring

Bob Cesca: Rick Perry is a Socialist in a Secessionist Costume

Steve Benen: How About a Bachmann-Inspired Stimulus?

T.P. Pratt: Stop Coddling The Poor

President Obama's Weekly Address - August 20, 2011

Putting Country Ahead of Party

A Vacation From Perspective

I'm kind of disgusted with the constant MSM drum beating about President Obama's vacation in Martha's Vineyard. He should cancel his vacation and sit in the Oval Office and wait for what? For Congress to come back to Washington in September? The bottom line is, no matter what the President does, it is Congress that creates and votes on legislation.

Now I thought I might be teetering on hypocrisy because back in the "good ol' days" I complained about Bush's vacation time, but it's time for a little perspective. In President Obama's 31 months in office, he has taken 61 vacation days. At the same point in their presidencies, Ronald Reagan had taken 112 days off and George W. Bush had taken 180 days off. In fact, it's laughable for a "news" outlet like Fox to whine and moan about Obama's time off when their guy took a combined THREE YEARS off out of his eight years in office. So, no. No hypocrisy. And I may be wrong, but don't remember seeing Bush's vacation time scrutinized nearly as much as what's happening now.

I'm not begrudging anyone their time off to recharge their batteries, especially when you have one of the toughest and most important jobs in the world. But what would your boss say if you took 6 months off in your first 2½ years of employment. Or the equivalent of 10 weeks of vacation time per year? It looks like President Obama's average of about 2½ weeks off per year is more in line with the rest of us plebeians, doesn't it?

Presidential Protection

I'm trying to remember when the last time anyone questioned the Secret Service's actions as it pertains to protecting the president... I think the answer is never. That is of course until this president.

The latest smear tactic of the rabid right wing is to try and pin "wasted tax dollars" on President Obama for two tour buses at a cost of $2.2 million that were used for his 3 day bus tour; vehicles that were commissioned by the Secret Service over a year ago and actually SAVE the country money as part of the permanent Secret Service fleet, as opposed to retrofitting leased buses every four years. Vehicles that the future GOP presidential nominee will also use. But that doesn't stop hacks like Sean Hannity and Eric Bolling from blaming Obama for yet another thing that he's not responsible for. David Shuster takes the hacks down handily filling in for Keith Olbermann.



After a 400% increase in presidential threats since Obama took office, I suppose Hannity or Bolling would prefer him ride around in a convertible... maybe in Dallas... and wave to passersby in Dealey Plaza.

Cartoon of the Day

Christie Running For President? FAT CHANCE!

Earlier today, Jonathan Alter reported via the Twitters that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was conducting focus groups for a possible 2012 presidential run. I mean, hell, if know-nothings like Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry can get into the act, why not lovable, straight talking, education fund blowing, job killing Chris Christie?

Well it seems to have been a misguided rumor.

A top adviser to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie insists the big name Republican is not exploring the possibility of running for president in the next election cycle despite rumors swirling that he could jump into the GOP primary mix...
"It’s completely untrue -- one hundred percent that is not true,” Christie adviser Mike Duhaime said in response to the suggestion, according to The Hill. “Nothing’s changed. I’m not sure who [Alter’s] source is or what they are saying, but nothing’s changed."

... and Alter concurs.

It's a good thing too, especially considering that it was only seven months ago that Christie said he wasn't ready to be President. But hey, he now has the same amount of gubernatorial experience as half termer Sarah Palin, so anything's possible.

Nothing Happened Before January 20, 2009

It's the only reason I can think of that Sean Hannity would blame Obama's policies for the mortgage crisis that began four years before he became president. Or, you know, he's a disingenuous hack.



As Media Matters' Jeremy Holden reports, economists noted as early as the summer of 2005 that the bursting of the housing bubble cause an economic recession.

It's amazing how Hannity reaches new levels of buffoonery on an almost daily basis.

Paul Ryan's Pay To Play Town Halls

I suppose Paul Ryan learned his lesson. After revealing the Ryan plan and the idea of making Medicare a voucher system, he got quite an earful of angry constituents at subsequent town hall meetings and realized no one as buying what he had to sell. So to alleviate that problem, Paul Ryan decided to now charge admission for his town hall meetings.

...Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and other Republican members of Congress have chosen to charge admission to their home-district appearances.

Ryan will speak September 6 to the Whitnall Park Rotary Club in Greenfield, Wisc. Admission to the event is $15 per person and includes lunch.

Ryan has no free public town hall appearances scheduled during the recess.

What a coward.

If anyone who reads this blog happens to be nearby a Ryan event in the next few weeks (maybe the September 6th event) or knows of anyone who does, and would like to continue to give Mr. Vouchercare a piece of their mind but can't afford it, please contact me. Maybe we can strike a deal and I'll try to help you pay the price of admission. I'm not a wealthy man by any means, but I don't want this chickenshit to get away with this type of tactic without some pushback.

He's Got Our Back, Now Get HIS!

Posted by JHW22

I just watched Democratic Representative Marcy Kaptur on The Rev Al's show (video later) basically second-guess why the President is choosing the towns and states he is visiting on his bus tour and saying he needs to talk about infrastructure jobs.

Well, Representative Kaptur, I now have you in my Sanders column. That column is where I am putting Democrats who are working AGAINST President Obama rather than with President Obama.

Here's the deal, Representative, unless I am mistaken, you haven't won a national Presidential campaign. Am I right? Let me check. Yep, I'm right, you haven't. Maybe you are the next David Plouffe and I missed the Obama for America memo. I get emails from them every day, but I am pretty sure I didn't get one that says you are the new mastermind behind the amazing machine I call Team Obama. So, questioning where the President is speaking, really, should be left to those who actually know how to run a national campaign. Okie doke?

Second, I suggest you Google "Obama, infrastructure bank". Go ahead, I'll wait. Now, I will also suggest that you actually leave your schedule clean whenever the President has a town hall, no matter what town he's holding it in, and listen to the entire thing. I recommend you watch it at the White House site or CSPAN because the MSM will cut away for the most valuable portion -- the Q & A. You'd be amazed at the great questions average Americans ask and the wonderful answers he provides. If you would listen to the President directly, you'd hear him talking about the jobs you don't seem to think he's talking about.

Your comments today remind me of right after the debt ceiling deal was made and I read Luke Russert's report that

A source close to the House Progressive Caucus tells NBC News that after reading media reports about a potential debt deal between the White House and Senate Republicans, many members are, "sufficiently spooked."

MEDIA REPORTS. I do NOT want my members of Congress basing their votes on MEDIA REPORTS! Why? Because of what I just posted above. Someone told someone who told someone that a member of the Progressive Caucus said that. But I didn't hear it said, did I? So, should I base a crucial vote on a game of hearsay? No. And you shouldn't form your judgment of the President on what is clearly not his first-hand speeches, statements or memos.

Here's my beef:

President Obama is constantly second-guessed, Monday Quarterbacked and hindered by his VERY OWN PARTY! STOP IT! STOP NOW!

Here's what you need to do, Representative Kaptur and Senator Sanders and all the other Democratic members of Congress who fall into my column of jackasses: you need to listen to the President, support what he says and focus on how the GOP is saying the opposite. You need to get your own damn House and Senate on board working WITH the President to get the best deals possible instead of fracturing into a left-wing version of the right-wing critics. How about when Al Sharpton asks you how Congress can pass the utopian policies you answer what YOU can do to get those policies passed rather than passing the buck onto the President who you just hindered and doubted and treated like a naive, stupid child.

I have accepted that the liberals in the MSM are going to twist and ignore and analyze based on tidbits when it comes to the President. But I expect far more from elected Democrats.

It is LONG PAST TIME for Democrats to start standing shoulder to shoulder with our President instead of twisting the GOP knife in his back.

Quit expressing disappointment and begrudging support of the President who has been going it almost alone in every battle. Democrats have been chicken shits when the big fights come and have been so easily distracted by their own fears that they have turned on him, requiring his energy to be divided between the GOP and his own damn party.

Quit putting your principles in front of your principles and MAYBE you will actually HELP the President get closer to your damn principles. Each time you treat him like he's not lifting heavily enough as you step back from the lifting to criticize how he's bending his knees, you weaken this party and this country.

Support this country by supporting this President. AND I MEAN NOW, GODDAMMIT! NOW!

Iowa Loves Them Some Crazy, Hates Milquetoast

CNN: Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann won the Ames Straw Poll Saturday, besting eight other Republican candidates in a nonbinding but politically significant vote in the first caucus state of Iowa.

"This is the first step toward taking the White House in 2012," Bachmann told the crowd. "And you have sent a message that Barack Obama will be a one-term president. This is a wonderful down payment on taking the country back -- and it started in Iowa."

Once again, Iowa shows its irrelevancy by dismissing any possible legitimate candidate for the GOP presidential nomination in their Ames Straw Poll and instead choosing Michele Bachmann as the person they'd like to represent Iowans, closely followed by Ron Paul.

The vote tallies were:

Michele Bachmann: 4,823
Ron Paul: 4,671
Tim Pawlenty: 2,293
Rick Santorum:1,567
Herman Cain: 1,456
Rick Perry: 718
Mitt Romney: 567
Newt Gingrich: 385
Jon Huntsman: 69
Thad McCotter: 35

Of course, this poll means practically nothing if you look at past winners. I mean, Pat Robertson won the thing in 1987, the same Pat Robertson that said Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment because of America's abortion policy.

The real winners of this Straw Poll were Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, who didn't even have to spend any time in Iowa and let Bachmann knock off Tim Pawlenty, a more legitimate but intensely boring candidate, who decided to call it quits after coming in, not second, but a distant third behind Ron Paul.

I suppose when you shoot yourself in the foot by coining "Obamneycare" and then show you have no balls by walking it back the next day in Romney's presence during the GOP's first primary debate, have no money and no support, it's probably the smartest thing you can do. No Pawlenty can go back to being irrelevant and ignored on the local level.

Must Reads

Timothy Egan: Rick Perry’s Unanswered Prayers

Bob Cesca: The Case for Republican Economic Sabotage

Jason Easley: Iowa Publicity Stunt Fail: Sarah Palin Gets Super Congress Wrong

Ezra Klein: Three Possible Futures for Health-Care Reform

John Nichols: Can We Have Health Reform Without an Individual Mandate? Yes, It's Called 'Medicare for All'

President Obama's Weekly Address - August 13, 2011

Putting the American People First

Bachmann's Newsweek Cover

Yes, folks. She IS that crazy. John Wayne Gacy crazy.

Cover via HuffPo

Liberals vs. Christianity

POSTED BY DESERT CRONE

I am taking a long and winding road in this post because I think it is important to understand my spiritual journey and beliefs to understand the message in this piece. Little did I know that this post would have its roots in something my Twitter friend @JKelton1 tweeted the other night. Basically, she said that if she made the same derogatory statements about Muslims that many liberals make about Christians she would be called out as a bigot. Yet many liberals think those same kind of statements about Christians are acceptable. What an amazing observation. My wheels started turning, and so many thoughts and ideas sprung from her statement. The criticism of Christians comes from liberal Christians, atheists, and followers of other faiths. I frequently see on my tweeter timeline other liberals questioning the intelligence of those of us who believe in God. I see Christians calling out other Christians for their hypocrisy. I think if many of us were honest our faith or lack of faith has taken a long arduous path through uncertainty, questioning, guilt, and enlightenment. The truth is that Christians are different in their own beliefs, in their definition of God, and even how they view the Bible. Yes, there are many liberals who practice the Christian faith, and we need to rejoice in the fact that in our political party we have people who actually walk the walk of Christ instead of talking.

As for myself, my faith is personal. I rarely debate anyone about faith or lack of faith. I am making a rare exception in writing this post. One reason I refuse to debate is because usually civil discourse disappears 5 minutes into the discussion. Faith or lack of faith is a very intimate decision often times based on emotion, although I’m sure there are many exceptions. If someone asked me if I were a Christian, I could not answer yes or no, but that is the kind of answer many people expect. To some the Bible is the literal Word of God, and we all worship the same God. They believe that folks are saved by God’s Grace and by accepting Christ as Lord and Master. So if that is the standard for Christianity, then I would say no, I’m not a Christian. However, I believe the Bible is the most beautifully written book in literature—and believe me, since I have both a BA and MA in English, I have read some magnificent literature. I do not take the Bible literally, but I follow the teachings of Christ. Well, at least I try to follow them. The Bible is filled with contradictions and possibly propaganda, but this is my opinion about which I could be wrong. For example, one reason I believe this is that the same creation myth appeared long before the story of Adam and Eve as well as the virgin birth in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Yet, I do look to the Bible for guidance. After the loss of my wonderful father and the onset of one health problem after another, I read the story of Job. Job is about faith, not patience, and my faith was taking a beating, not because I blamed God but because I couldn’t feel God’s presence. I also don’t believe in magic, and of course, the Bible is filled with what I call magic. However, many of my friends do believe in miracles, and I totally respect that. I do not listen to them with skepticism. Faith is faith, period. You can’t argue someone out of faith with logic or reason or facts. If you do, then what they had was not faith.

I grew up in a small Southern Baptist Church in the Bible Belt of southeastern New Mexico. My dad taught Sunday school, and we religiously attended church. My mother, not my dad, was the biblical scholar in the family, and every Saturday night she taught my dad the lesson he was going to teach Sunday morning. As long as I can remember, my mother was a self-proclaimed agnostic and possibly an atheist by the time she died. One Sunday after church when I was in high school, my dad, sister, and I walked out of church never to return again. My dad said, “I’m tired of walking out of church feeling worse than when I went into church.” Although I was baptized in that church, I vowed I would never set foot in that Baptist church or any other Baptist church again. I went off to college and drank myself right into alcoholism.

I’m not recounting my story other to say I got drunk, acted like an ass, felt like crap, and then started the process over again. Eventually, my husband, daughter, and I moved to a northern New Mexico town where they attended a small liberal church. They were always trying to get me to go to church with them, and I eventually acquiesced. We struck a deal that when I went to church, my husband would take us out for Sunday dinner. I attended church with them as I continued my downward spiral into both alcohol and drug addiction. Spidery veins covered my face and my stomach was distended. I looked 50 although I was only 38 years old.

One Sunday I, who had denounced God or declared Him dead, prayed for help with my drinking. No, I didn’t want to quit because I was not an alcoholic. I just wanted to drink without getting drunk and feeling like crap the next day. Why I thought of prayer as an answer I do not know. Well, one week later I was in a rehab center in Oklahoma City and on my way to 25 years of sobriety thus far. In my journey through the 12 Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous, reading what we call the Big Book, and attending meetings, I began an amazing spiritual quest. That quest was only intensified when I helped other drunks find their way to AA. About now, you may wonder what this has to do with my topic—well, a lot actually.

A young man named Steve whom I taught in both junior high and high school got clean and sober not too much longer after I did. I adored that child. He helped me facilitate the recovery group for students. In that group we shared our strengths, hopes, fears, and experiences. Needless to say, I heard stuff that would make most people’s hair curl. One snowy day a friend called me with the tragic news that Steve had died in a car crash on a slick Colorado pass. He was clean and sober. His death was so devastating to me that I cannot write about it now without tears running down my face. His funeral was to be held at the First Baptist Church in this northern NM town—not my church, but a Baptist church, nonetheless. Of course, I attended with hundreds of others from the recovery community. I learned in AA that if I heard only one good thing in a meeting, then it was a good meeting. I just instinctively listened and heard one of the most beautiful sermons I have ever heard in my life. It was a good meeting.

My epiphany that day was that if I open my heart and mind to any spiritual message, I will hear what I need to hear. And so now I come full circle. Do I believe in Jesus Christ? Yes. Do I believe that He is the Son of God? I just don’t know because that is part of my continuing journey. Do I believe in Heaven? Again, I don’t know, but I believe in Heaven on earth. When I do something good for the underprivileged, when I bring someone into AA, when I look at my husband, my children and grandchildren, I experience Heaven. My Higher Power is not a cruel, angry, vindictive God so I don’t believe in Hell. He didn’t take Steve from me or his loved ones because He wanted him in Heaven. Steve died because the driver took an icy curve much too fast. I don’t believe my Higher Power works that way.

I cannot think of a faith in the traditional sense of the word that doesn’t practice love and compassion, and yet, throughout history, those religions have been held captive by extremists at some point. Followers have also committed countless acts of unimaginable cruelty. Sometimes we liberals who are so quick to point out the failings in Christians overlook those same failings in people who practice other religions. And yes today, as in other religious faiths, we have extremists who have captured the Christian faith.

It’s not my place to question anyone’s faith or lack of faith because you can see I’m a pretty unconventional Christian. I have believed what Christ admonished us to do in Matthew 6:5-6 long before Rev. Al read the passage on MSNBC in context to the Rick Perry revival meeting. I believe my relationship with my God is personal and private, and I will not denigrate that relationship by proselytizing to all around me. I won’t refer to the Rick Perrys of the world as hypocrites since I am a practicing hypocrite. I don’t want to be nor try to be, but I’m a human with all the accompanying weakness and character flaws.

So I tell my story about my spiritual journey to demonstrate that we are influenced by our experiences and individuality. Also, to illustrate that Christian thought is probably as varied as Christians themselves. It is a mistake to condemn Christianity and its believers for the unconscionable way some who profess Christian faith behave. Instead, judge them by their actions and words. If you do that, you will see neighbors, friends, and family who help others on a daily basis without the need for praise or recognition.

Perry's Texas by the Numbers

POSTED BY JHW22

As a Texas resident and mother of a Texas native, I am consistently calling for fellow Democrats to put aside the "Go ahead and kick Texas out" crap. Seriously. We are more purple than people think. And now that our governor is running for POTUS, we need your support and you need our resources and knowledge.

Can you imagine if Texas voted for Obama instead of our own governor? It IS possible IF all of America works with Texans to make sure the state goes blue. So, now that Governor Goodhair is officially inferring that he is officially running, I will start regular posts about him. After all, I have a special knowledge of the man and the state.

So join me in informing voters about his true record. Join me in educating voters on what he really has done to the state. Let's make sure he doesn't move from his $9,000/month rental mansion into the White House. Okay, y'all?

And with that, I give you this report issued in February of 2011 by members of the state legislature. I can say, without hesitation, that one of the members, State Representative Lon Burnam is a fantastic liberal and deserves as much support as he can get. He is a consistent voice for Democratic values in this state.

So here y'all go. Texas by the numbers. It ain't pretty. Make sure your friends and family know it.

Texas On The Brink

Entitled

POSTED BY JHW22

I am reading a lot lately about people mad about the word, "entitlements" and in the same breath, a raging disrespect of members of Congress who use the word and at the same time have great benefits on the job. So here's my rebuttal to that:

An entitlement MEANS something we have a right to. SO, they are entitlements and we should call them entitlements. Because we have the right to them.

What's happening lately, is people are wanting to change the meaning of the word and their purpose. And we shouldn't. We should embrace the word and the purpose. Some people are trying to change the meaning of the word to imply something undeserved. We can't let people change the meanings of words for political purposes.

Now, as for how much people pay in and get out, TECHNICALLY, most Americans will get back more in benefits than we ever paid in no matter when we started working. For the most part, you will get back, in social security and Medicare, benefits very early into retirement. If a person has a lot of health conditions, they will likely get what they paid into Medicare back within a couple of years of their 20+ years of receiving the entitlements.

Now, my last point, some in Congress totally suck. Some are idiots and racists and homophobes and just plain bad for America. BUT we have some amazing members of Congress who work their asses off, don't see their families for weeks at a time, have to have a home in their state AND one in D.C. (which is not a cheap place to live) travel constantly, meet with angry constituents, work with asshole coworkers, fight for the best policies against completely obstinate ideologues, and have very little respect from Americans.

I can name at least 30 members of Congress, off the top of my head, who I believe earn every penny and benefit. And it's because of those, and the even more I could think of if I really thought about it, that I don't lump them all into a bucket. And that is WHY we need to be active citizens, stay informed, counter crap that is false and meant to mislead, communicate, and VOTE. When we find junk in Congress, we need to get it out of there.

WTF Wisconsin?!

Democrats gained two state Senate seats in Wisconsin last night, falling short of the three wins needed to gain control of the state's upper chamber.

...Voter turnout was high for the recalls, although not as high as election officials and news reports initially predicted. Overall, about 43% of eligible voters came out for the recalls, compared to about 50% turnout in last year's gubernatorial election.

That second paragraph is really a killer. 43% voter turnout is considered high? Just shows another American attribute made clear: we take voting for granted and are just too damn lazy to go out and make our voices heard. You had a chance Wisconsin Democrats, but 43% just doesn't cut it. Guess your citizens aren't as union friendly as you thought.

You'd better turn out in droves next week for the recall elections against Democrats to keep what you won last night, or else all this was for naught.

Recharging Batteries

I'm out of town for a wedding and a vacation, so there'll be very light blogging here for the week. For a while I kind of felt guilty about it and then I thought, "Hell, if Rachel Maddow can take a vacation, than so can I. And I don't even get paid for this shit!" ...Not that I'm comparing myself to Maddow, but you know what I mean.

Hopefully JHW22 and Desert Crone will pick up the slack while I'm gone. Until we meet again, but judging by the Dow maybe I should say IF we meet again.