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.