Another Federal Judge Upholds Affordable Care Act

A second federal judge has upheld President Obama's HCR package. Obvious conclusions for anybody that knows the least bit about the Constitution.

The court found "there is a rational basis for Congress to conclude that individuals’ decisions about how and when to pay for health care are activities that in the aggregate substantially affect the interstate health care market."

Striking to me is that this case was brought by Liberty University, also known as the right reverend Jerry Falwell's self-proclaimed Christian church. We all know Jesus told us to forsake the sick and not to bear one anothers burdens. Chalk another loss up to the Christian Right Wrong.

TARP Gets Even Cheaper

The other day while listing 10 Facts Republicans Refuse to Believe, I said that TARP would only cost about $30 billion. Yesterday, CBO released new figures showing the cost of TARP to be even less than that, roughly $25 billion.

This is good news.

A quick review, just for fun.  TARP was an enormous $700 billion piece of legislation submitted to Congress by the Bush administration.  It was passed with bipartisan support, including huge backing by the next Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner (and tough guy Eric Cantor).  The Bush administration described it as socialism to save capitalism.  It worked.  Bush was right.

TARP expired in October of this year.  Meaning, it is no longer legally available as a safety net.  It can't be rescinded and it can't be abolished.  About $430 billion of the original $700 billion has been spent or will shortly.  Of the money spent ($430 billion), $216 billion has been repaid, mostly due to President Obama's diligent persistence that the funds be repaid quickly.  The remaining investments, ~$214 billion has either made the government money or broke even.

Not a bad deal really.  And remember, I opposed it and still do.  But it worked.

Tea Bagger President Supports Restricting Voting Rights Only to Property Owners

Reminiscent of Republican Tea Bagger Tom Tancredo's call for literacy tests, the president of the Tea Bagger Nation goes a step further and agrees voting rights for only those that own property "makes a lot of sense."

His rationale, you might ask?  Because only those that own property have a vested interest in the community.  I couldn't agree more.  Women, slaves, and the native injuns really have no business voting.  I don't know why we just can't go back to the exact original intent of the framers and quit with this incremental pussyfooting.

GOP Rep. Joe Barton Thinks He's Waging War Against POTUS

It's almost impossible to imagine what would happen if a Democratic member of Congress had said they wanted to wage war against President Bush. It's even more impossible to imagine what would have happened if the entire Democratic caucus had envisioned itself as waging a battle for the struggle of freedom against the Bush administration.  One slip of the tongue that President Bush was wrong would have landed anyone in the cross hairs of Patriotic watchdogs.  A mention that he was an enemy of America and that you are going to wage war against him would have been incomprehensible.

Yet today, now that George Bush and his failure of leadership is gone, it's perfectly acceptable to not only rebuke the president but to also suggest he is an enemy of the country.  It's perfectly acceptable for Republicans, the very same people that would have yelled and screamed at anyone disagreeing with Bush, to routinely call the President of the United States an enemy and use violent combative language to describe how the new president should be handled.

In a PowerPoint slideshow distributed to Republican Members, Rep. Joe Barton declares that he is waging war against the Obama administration.

"Speaker Boehner is our Dwight Eisenhower in the battle against the Obama Administration," says Barton's presentation, which was obtained by The Huffington Post.

"Majority Leader Cantor is our Omar Bradley," it goes on.

"I want to be George Patton - put anything in my scope and I will shoot it," promises Barton.

The slide is headlined: "What's in Store for the Obama Administration."

Incredible. Just truly incredible. Put aside for a second that Joe Barton has never seen an ounce of combat in his entire life. He has never once worn a military uniform or fought anything. Despite being of prime fighting age during Vietnam, a chance when he could have really proven his George Patton skills, he ran and hid. To hear Barton talk now, some forty years after failing to actually fight for his country, Barton is a bad ass general that wants to fight an enemy in which he says he can "hit the ground running" based on his experience.  Based on his actual personal history, running during wartime is actually something he does know something about.

Put that aside for a second.

Put aside the fact that Boehner, despite being of prime fighting age during Vietnam, sought a discharge for a bad back.  A time when his country needed him most, he ran and hid crying about a bad back that has never stopped him from playing golf. Put aside, too, that Eric Cantor has never once served in the military or experienced one minute of combat.  But now, in the Republican Fantasy World, these three men who have never led men in battle, or much less seen war unless it's on their Fox News teevee sets, really believe that they are three of this country's greatest generals.  Where in any of those three's past is their anything that remotely resembles Ike, Patton or Bradley?  It's insane!

So let's put aside the complete idiocy of just how ridiculously hypocritical the Republican Party has become.  Instead let's focus on who in their right mind gets to behave this way and get away with it.  In what world does an elected member of government get to declare the president an enemy that must be fought and destroyed not get held accountable?  I'm not suggesting that Republicans, or anyone for that matter, can't disagree with the president.  I'm only saying let's hold them accountable to their rhetoric.  If they really get to pretend they are Great Warrior Patriots equal to three of the greatest wartime generals to ever serve, then make them accountable to it.  They should be treated exactly the same way a Democrat would be if he or she did the same thing.

No more special treatment.  No more pretending.  You own it.  You own this fixture of modern Americanism.  If you really see yourself as a Freedom Fighting Revolutionary, then let's do it.  If you really want to bump peter heads to a make-believe world where three men who have never come within a few thousand miles of combat get portrayed as Brave Freedom Fighting Generals, more power to you.  But we aren't going to do it your way any more.

Politics of Pay Freeze

Two takes on the Obama plan to freeze pay for federal employees. One, it's stupid. Two, it's smart.

Stupid because it's a gimmick. The $2 billion it will save in the budget will take a $1.3 trillion deficit to a $1.29 trillion deficit. Accomplishes nothing, neither long term or short. It's also stupid because it will do nothing to get Republicans, who are about to takeover the House, to compromise on one single issue. Stupid, too, because it once again alienates the president's base, as if he needs any more of that.  Stupid, finally, because there will be hundreds of loopholes where high level federal employees will get pay raises and then the administration will look incompetent, if not crooked.

On the other hand, it's smart, very smart politics.  I see this as pure Clintonian.  What did Clinton do right after being impeached?  Oh yeah, he reignited the whole star wars program, which is simply a huge Republican spending bill but who cares about deficits?  Clinton was a master at taking other people's proposals and making them his, and then turning the whole thing back around on them.

Let's face it, Republicans are and were never going to do anything about the deficit or spending in the first place.  If somehow they were able to take over the presidency tomorrow we would never hear another word about the budget, our huge debt or the deficit that they created.  It would all be forgotten in a nanosecond.  The politics of the pay freeze puts Republicans on the spot for a plan they have been claiming to support for at least 20 months now.  It also gives off the appearance that Obama is willing to accept Republican plans and work on a bipartisan level to help solve the budget crisis.  How will Republicans return the favor?  They won't.  But the appearance is all that matters.

Freezing pay will do nothing to solve the deficit problem.  It will also do nothing to stimulate anything.  It may, in fact, be harmless, totally.  That alone makes it worth the president's while.  This move is simply about politics.  Probably over the head of most progressives and liberals, simply because they see it as the president caving for yet another GOP proposal.  That's the point.

Less Than Impressed With WikiLeaks

I'm less than impressed with the latest round of leaks coming from the very innovative WikiLeaks site. None of it really seems all that new. We spy on our allies; we use gimmicks to garner up support for our policies; we don't like Iran; we really screwed up Iraq; we still mistrust the Russians; and we still make fun of the French. How is any of this new or news? It's not.

I don't think WikiLeaks is a terrorist group or should be prosecuted, like some members of Congress are shouting.  Those that leaked the cables to the internet organization should be, however.  The point is, government classifies all different sorts of information it doesn't want you to see. This latest round of info is the boring, every day interaction of bureaucrats at work. Just because a foreign service employee talks about Kadafi and his mistress in unflattering ways, does that mean our government should be dissolved like WikiLeaks is hoping will happen?  Not in my book.

I'm glad WikiLeaks is in place.  I'm glad it tries to shed light on government actions. I'm also glad our government is trying to make deals with other countries to shut down Gitmo.  And I'm glad to see "secret" government communiques made public, if for no other reason than the comic relief.

*Update:

The biggest revelation coming from the leaks is not that we spy on our friends, but that the Communist government of China ordered a complete and systematic sabotage of global proportions when it hacked into Google's computer systems.

I understand that WikiLeaks would like nothing more than to see the United States fade away as the world's superpower, but really the biggest crime listed in their leaks is from China.  If an American administration had ordered such sabotage efforts, WikiLeaks would have an entire page dedicated to that specific topic alone.  Since it's China, it's no big deal.

Quickies: Thanksgiving Break Edition

I'm on break so this is all you're getting...

• Former Republican House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay, convicted on all counts.  This should come as a shock to no one.
• Fox News, the beacon of journalistic excellence that it is, runs with a story from The Onion about President Obama without mentioning anywhere in the article that The Onion is a satire site and the story about the president was fake.  
• Republican Senator Jon Kyl slipped $200 million into a bill meant to have nothing to do with Kyl's earmarked funding.  Don't call it an earmark though.  Remember Republicans redefined what an earmark was shortly after promising to ban all earmarks.
• More proof the Obama stimulus package rescued America from the brink of economic disaster.
• This week's Thanksgiving edition of the right wing conspiracy theory in America: Pilgrims came to America to flee the satanic evils of socialism.  [not a link to The Onion either]

Still Dumb

But who will we fight Sarah?

CO-HOST: How would you handle a situation like the one that just developed in North Korea? [...]

PALIN: But obviously, we’ve got to stand with our North Korean allies. We’re bound to by treaty –

CO-HOST: South Korean.

PALIN: Eh, Yeah. And we’re also bound by prudence to stand with our South Korean allies, yes.

Audio

10 Facts Republicans Refuse to Believe

In the spirit of the website Crooks and Liars, I've created my own list of Ten Things Republicans Refuse to Believe.

1. President Obama cut taxes for everyone that earns a paycheck.

The first piece of legislation ushered in by the Obama administration was a stimulus package that contained almost $300 billion in payroll tax cuts. As Nate Silver calculated, that means 98.6% of working households received a tax cut once Obama took office.

2. TARP Worked

Despite wanting to admit it, TARP worked.  I was against it, as you'll recall.  But it actually turned out to be a hugely successful program.  The most successful policy of George Bush's two terms to be exact.  The program earned the American government at least $40 billion.  By far the most revenue any program has ever earned the government.  In all, if it were to never make another penny, the program would now only cost tax payers $30 billion.  That's dramatically cheaper than the near $1 trillion it was expected to cost.  Pumping tax dollars into the the private sector helped ward off a complete financial meltdown.  It worked.  Plain and simple.

3. The Stimulus Worked

It warded off complete collapse.  Stopped the flood of job losses.  And boosted GDP back to positive territory.  Economists agree the stimulus "raised GDP by about 3.4 percent, holding the unemployment rate about one-and-a-half percentage points lower, and adding almost 2.7 million jobs to U.S. payrolls."

4. Ronald Reagan Tripled the National Debt

This simple fact is regarded as pure fantasy by conservative and Republicans alike. But the truth is, if you turn down your Fox News teevee set that is, you'll learn that the national debt exploded under Saint Ronnie.  Here's the scorecard:

After 8 years of Reagan the national debt went from roughly $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.  That's a 186% increase, the most since WWII.   That is an incredible amount of debt from the so-called small government, fiscally responsible party.

5. George W. Bush doubled It

Then without a second thought, or a single gripe from the fiscally conservative, deficit hawk crowd, George W. Bush and his GOP took a government that was running surpluses and created the largest deficits in human history.  As a result, the national debt went from $5.7 trillion to more than $11 trillion when you add in all his bailouts including TARP.

6. Obama Inherited the Worst Scenario Any Elected President Ever Has

Simply and factually stated, no elected president in the history of America has ever inherited two ongoing endless wars with an economy on the verge of collapse.  It's never happened before.  But it did when President Obama inherited the country from Bush.

7. Obama Has Shrunk the Deficit

According to the U.S. Treasury, for the 2010 fiscal year that ended on September 30, the government had a budget shortfall of 1.294 trillion dollars, down 122 billion dollars from the previous year's record-setting high.

The 2010 fiscal year was President Obama's first federal operating budget. The previous year's budget was the final Bush budget which set a record for the largest deficit in American history.  The budget deficit shrunk by $122 billion since Obama has taken office.

8. Obama Inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit, He Did Not Create It

It's amazing that some people believe American history began on Jan. 20th, 2009-- BUT IT DIDN'T.  The day Obama took office the budget deficit was $1.416 trillion. He did not create it.

9. All the Bailouts Were Republican George Bush Policy

TARP was passed in October of 2008, over three months before Obama would become president.  The original legislation was submitted to Congress by President George Bush and passed with both Republican and Democratic support of which Bush signed into law.  Prior to TARP, the Bush administration had already committed $30 billion to Bear Stearns, $400 billion to Fannie and Freddie, $180 billion to AIG, $25 billion to the Auto industry, $85 billion to AIG, and billions more to the airline industry after 9/11.

Even the GM bailout in 2009 came from TARP funds and was structurally in place before Obama took office. It was the continuation of a Bush plan already moving forward, much like the surge in Iraq can't be credited to Obama either.

10. Republicans Have Never Shrunk Government, Cut Spending or Reined in the Deficit

Is there anyone that still believes Republicans have ever governed with their so-called "principles" in mind?  If so, consider this:

Since the ushering in of the modern Republican "Reagan Revolution," the GOP has never done any of the above.  Frankly put, in the 20 years of modern Republican rule-- 8 years of Reagan, 4 years of Bush, and 8 years of Bush-- spending has never decreased, the deficit only grew by leaps and bounds (see #'s 4 & 5) and never did government shrink.  There is no factual record they can point to that would in any way whatsoever suggest they are a conservative lot.

When We Need It Least, the Right Wing Conspiracy Machine Works Best

More than most people realize, the left and the right actually do agree on a lot of issues. The post-9/11 era (via Obama?) return to airport security procedures being but one of many.

I don't know how many people realize that the most left-leaning liberal mainstream blog on the net that I can think of, Fire Dog Lake, run by Jane Hamsher, is the most vocal opponent of the TSA and the Big Brother state one can find. Such a stance puts them squarely in-line with Lew Rockwell or even National Review-- two of the most mainstream right-leaning blogs.  If either could get over the self-infatuation with always being right, the country could probably solve a lot of our most pressing concerns.

However, when plumb retarded, vast right wing conspiracy theories like Muslim women are exempt from the TSA pat downs are being invented and spread by Fox News and Glenn Beck, there's just no chance Jane Hamsher and her liberal wing are going to agree to agree with anything the rightards might propose.

Muslim women are exempt...what a bunch of idiots.  Can we ever have a sane, well-balanced discussion about a serious matter in this country?  If we could do it without actually having to include Beck, Palin and Limbaugh, we might solve something.  But that would be like asking one side to play a game without their leadership and that's not about to happen anytime soon.

Pelosi Did Her Job

Post election, Republicans are flabbergasted that Nancy Pelosi would still hold leadership in her party's House caucus. Why wouldn't she?

Pelosi passed some of the most progressive pieces of legislation in a generation. That's what she was there to do. She passed through her chamber legislation repelling Don't Ask, Don't Tell. She passed through her chamber, twice, legislation that expanded health care to children. She passed through her chamber, equal pay for women, a deadline that would have ended the war in Iraq with one signature from President Bush, credit card reform, PayGo, Wall St. reform, and genuine health care reform that included a public option.

These are huge accomplishments for the progressive community and the Democratic Party itself.  Every single one of those accomplishments individually poll as very popular issues.  She did exactly what she was elected Speaker to do: legislate her party's agenda.

Instead she's treated as if she held the House hostage and forced everything with stiff-arm methods.  She did exactly everything she said she was going to do.  It was an agenda vastly approved by the American people.  If she wants to continue having leadership in her party, she deserves it.

Here's what goes unsaid or deleted from history.  Democrats took back the House in 2006 by running their campaigns to bring an end to the war in Iraq, on providing oversight to a very unpopular president, on expanding health care to children, on the Lilly Ledbetter Act that granted fair pay for women, on credit card reform and on repealing DADT.  They were overwhelmingly elected on those topics and Pelosi did just that.  She did her job.

Now it's time for Republicans to attempt their agenda.  They won by saying they will repeal Obama's health care reform, by saying they will get rid of earmarks, by saying they will rein in the deficit and shrink government, by saying they will privatize Social Security and cut taxes.  Do it.

Naked Body Scans Will Lead to More Highway Deaths

This seems reasonable enough.

“Driving is much more dangerous than flying, as you are far more likely to be killed in an automobile accident mile-for-mile than you are in an airplane,” said Horwitz. “The result will be that the new TSA procedures will kill more Americans on the highway.”

No doubt about it. The option of either being porno-scanned or groped at the nation's airports will lead to more people opting to drive over the holiday season. In turn, more drivers equals more wrecks. More wrecks increase the chances of more fatalities.

Flying is the safest form of travel. But it is no where near the most convenient.

My Answer to Porno-Scanners at Airports

Just ban clothing. That way we can see everything. No more strip searches. No more fondling. No more scans or long lines. Shoes are optional though. So you might still be asked to remove them.

An Actual Decent Bipartisan Approach to Health Care Reform Emerges

This is one of the best plans I've seen in a while. It has it's shortcomings but I don't think I've come across anything better, short of a national single payer system, which I fully support.

In short, here's what I'm talking about.

Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Scott Brown (R-Mass.) introduced the “Empowering States to Innovate Act.” The legislation would allow states to develop their own health-care reform proposals that would preempt the federal government’s effort. If a state can think of a plan that covers as many people, with as comprehensive insurance, at as low a cost, without adding to the deficit, the state can get the money the federal government would’ve given it for health-care reform but be freed from the individual mandate, the exchanges, the insurance requirements, the subsidy scheme and pretty much everything else in the bill.

I think this is a great idea. I really do. It allows states to exert primary control of their health care system. If they can do a better job than the federal government-- or another state-- and do it cheaper, then the state gets to keep the money the federal government would be supplying it in the first place.  If not, the state has the option of adopting an approach that has worked in other states all of which would be backed up by the federal government.

I'll have more on this later, but on the surface I gotta admit I'm encouraged by this approach.  States get more say and get to compete with each other to see who can build the cheapest and best health care system.

*Update:

Giving states more power in the realm of health care is not just a "conservative" issue.  Though I'd argue all day what "conservative" actually means.  Nevertheless, the hippy, tree hugging, liberals at Fire Dog Lake are coming out in favor of this newest bipartisan proposal.

Via Jon Walker at FDL:

People on the right should support it because it at least gives states the option of creating a system without an individual mandate, and it would technically not be “Washington-directed health care” or “Obamacare.”

Progressives should strongly support the change because, frankly, the private insurance exchange model created by the new health care law is a horribly designed, wasteful, pro-corporatist system. It is unlikely to be sustainable long term. The earlier that more liberal states can adopt more progressive models, the better. Ideally, when the more successful progressive reforms are demonstrated to be successful in a few liberal states, it will result in those progressive changes being adopted nationally.

Now I realize that when evil liberals come out in favor of something it is a vote killer for the America-loving Republicans. So me drawing attention to the fact that this might be something both sides could agree on indeed presents the possibility for Republicans to yell and scream that they are not being listened to while holding circle jerks to combat what they fear is a socialist takeover. I'll take my chances on this but I'm fully aware the slightest mention of support from the left could kill this for the GOP.

Hannity: Reliable Dem Sources Tell Me Obama is Unhinged

Über Patriot Sean Hannity said on his radio show Monday that he has very reliable Democratic sources who have told him that President Obama is crazy.

There are some Democrats that cue me into things. I got to tell you that the feeling among some people in the White House is that this president is unhinged, that he’s detached, that he’s losing it, he’s obsessed with critics, very specifically obsessed with Fox News, he can’t stand Biden, he hates the Clintons, the Clintons hate him.

That the only thing he is passionate about seems to be ESPN and playing golf and and playing some basketball, the only thing that gets his interest. Infighting apparently, and finger pointing is at an all-time high, if the President is brought bad news on the economy he has a meltdown every time he hears it. And this is what people — and I’m telling you my sources are reliable — are telling me.

If there is anybody that knows anything about being unhinged it's Sean Hannity.

In all seriousness, people who listen to Sean Hannity lack a chromosome. But people who actually believe he has reliable Democratic sources make Jeffry Dahmer look sane.

Here's the audio:

Bryan Fischer Wants More Killing Like Jesus Taught Us

My favorite Republican pastor, Bryan Fischer, is again spreading God's call for more violence and death to the millions of lost souls in America.  This time he's solely focused on not enough killing.

Fischer is mad that President Obama awarded the Medal of Honor to an alive Army vet instead of a dead one.  Not only does this Army vet have a pulse, he also received the medal for saving lives on the battle field.  Rev. Fischer, who is ordained by God, says the award should be for men who have killed instead of men who have saved lives.

But I have noticed a disturbing trend in the awarding of these medals, which few others seem to have recognized.

We have feminized the Medal of Honor.

According to Bill McGurn of the Wall Street Journal, every Medal of Honor awarded during these two conflicts has been awarded for saving life. Not one has been awarded for inflicting casualties on the enemy. Not one.

This is a disturbing trend.  There is not near enough killing going on in our wars.

There can be no denying that the message of Jesus is one of death and destruction.  If you don't believe like we do, and that being in the complete Divinity of Christ, then death awaits you.  Jesus told us to go spread cluster bombs and M-4 casings.  By not adhering to the Word of God, we deny the very example Jesus set for us. Writes Rev. Fischer:

Jesus, in words often cited in ceremonies such as the one which will take place this afternoon, said, “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). So it is entirely right that we honor this kind of bravery and self-sacrifice, which is surely an imitation of the Lord of Lord and King of Kings.

However, Jesus’ act of self-sacrifice would ultimately have been meaningless - yes, meaningless - if he had not inflicted a mortal wound on the enemy while giving up his own life.

Amen to that. Being God's Right Hand Man, Fischer knows a thing or two about following the example of killing and destruction Jesus set for us. Being of prime fighting age during another one of Jesus' war callings in Vietnam, Fischer never went. He instead went to the prestigious Standford University avoiding entirely the Lord's work.  When he was of prime killing age, when God was calling all good Christians to kill for America, Fischer was no where to be found.  God has obviously forgiven him for his sins because Fischer is now doing more than his share of heavy lifting for the Lord-- you know, just so long as he isn't the one doing the fighting and dying.

Power, power, Wonder working power
in the Blood of the Lamb

Just Admitting It Is Change

A friend who is by no means a supporter of the president emailed me this link to a Yahoo news story describing how President Obama admitted some mistakes in his first 22 months. The email was written as to say that they were glad to see Obama admitting his shortcomings and that he has failed at change.

Whatever that may mean, I totally disagree with my friend.  After four years in office when asked to name one mistake he had made President George Bush could not think of any.  He didn't name a single one. 

"I'm sure something will pop into my head here...maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one," was his answer.

At that time, America was knee-deep in a reckless war ordered by Mr. Bush based on trumped up charges of WMD and ties to al Qaeda that were untrue and he could not name one single mistake.  Three years later, when asked again about mistakes being made specifically regarding his wars and his excursion into Iraq which was in year 4 by that time, he answered "so what" to the simple fact that al Qaeda was not in Iraq until after his invasion.  So what?  Quite the answer from a man who had never seen an ounce of combat a day in his life.

Today President Obama is stuck fixing Bush's economic mistakes as well as his huge blunders in Iraq and Afghanistan.  That big "so what" is now in year 7 and thousands of American troops are dead.  Plus nearly a trillion dollars have been spent in Iraq alone.  So what.

Having a president admit mistakes is a quantum leap of change from the past.  So while we're still busy fixing Bush's mess just remember no president in history has ever inherited two ongoing endless wars and an economy on the brink of collapse.  Ever.  It's also entertaining to think that people who didn't vote for Obama are dissatisfied about change not coming quick enough.  Look around fools.  Your world is gone.

Repubs Want to Redefine Definition of Earmark

God's Right Hand, Michelle Bachmann

A perfect example of the inane stupidity America is going to be held hostage to come January happened this week.  In an attempt to speak out against evil earmarks, GOP Rep. Michelle Bachmann called for a "redefinition" to what constitutes an earmark.

“Advocating for transportation projects for ones district in my mind does not equate to an earmark.”

“I don’t believe that building roads and bridges and interchanges should be considered an earmark,” Bachmann said. “There’s a big difference between funding a tea pot museum and a bridge over a vital waterway.”

Transportation projects are not earmarks?  Of course transportation projects are earmarks.  Any appropriated money that is ordered to go to certain things is an earmark.  What Bachmann and her Republican tea baggers are wanting to do is unfairly redefine what an earmark is so that their projects in their districts cannot be called earmarks.  In other words, if it's money for Republican projects it will be called Patriot Projects.  But money for Democratic districts will still get the pork label.

Aside from the semantics of what the definition of an earmark is, such projects only make up less than 1% of the entire budget.  So cut them out.  It's not a big deal either way.  Keep them in.  Who cares.  It will matter none on the deficit side of things.  Not to mention, Congress is going to appropriate funds no matter if we call them earmarks or not.  This war on earmarks is grossly exaggerated and made for Fox News.

Fox News Chairman Goes Off on President Obama

None of Roger Ailes' comments are all that surprising. Ailes is a Republican that is chairman of a Republican-controlled media organization. His boss donates millions of dollars to GOP candidates and promotes Republican causes at all costs.  That he is not going to say nice things about him is not surprising.

But this nugget is hysterical.

The 70-year-old Ailes, dressed in a lavender shirt and tie, goes on in this vein, saying the network isn’t singling out Obama for criticism but that its style “tends to be more direct” in challenging presidents.

George Bush left office with a 26% approval rating and not one single time did Ailes ever launch such criticism his way like he just did President Obama.

It's the Calculator Stupid

My Republican friend writes in to tell me that I can't be serious about plugging in Republican proposals in the deficit calculator(s) and not solve the deficit problem. In his world, the calculators are all biased.

Christopher, you almost hit the nail on the head when you said your liberal deficit calculators are "tricky" and don't let you fully apply GOP ideas. There is no button to repeal Obamacare. There is no button to rescind unspent stimulus money. There is no button to keep the Obama's from traveling on the tax payers dime. Joke all you want, until there's real consideration for Republican plans we'll never have true deficit reduction.

True enough I did lament the fact that the pretend budget calculators wouldn't let me abolish the Department of Education, the Federal Reserve and whatnot.  But those aren't real plans.  There's no chance of any of that happening.  The calculators were designed with actual, substantive, on the table policies in mind.  Tea bagger hard-ons are not based in reality.  I know it's difficult for Republicans to understand all that but going five minutes without Rush Limbaugh and Fox News could really help you cope with the reality-based community.

Furthermore, the Affordable Care Act reduces the deficit.  Repealing it would add to the red ink.  There's less than $300 billion left in the Stimulus.  Repeal it and HCR and you're still left with a $1 trillion deficit in the short term.  Total geniuses.

Reining in That Deficit

I noticed yesterday the Times had a fun budget simulator that allowed visitors to try and solve the elusive deficit crisis in America.  So I gave it shot.

Then today I noticed so did Matt Yglesias.  But his budget sucks and mine is much better.  As I was calculating my world's greatest deficit slasher, I saw where it gave the option to raise the Medicare age rather than Social Security.  I have always thought it makes much more sense to raise the Medicare age requirement than Social Security.  Since it makes so much sense to do so, the chances of it happening in America are slim to none, which is why we hear absolutely nothing about it on our teevee sets.

After seeing the option to raise the Medicare age, I clicked it.  By the time I got to the end of the calculator, I had solved the deficit crisis.  How did I do such an impossible thing you ask?  Being the Obama supporter that I am I must have raised taxes on everyone and eliminated the military, right?  Not quite.  My calculations are 43% from spending cuts and I simply returned taxes to Clinton levels (you know when we had huge surpluses).  And then the real kicker came from when I clicked that box to raise Medicare to age 70.

What I might do for fun is enter in the scenario that Republicans assure us will work: Cut taxes, get rid of those pesky ear marks that make up less than 1% of the budget, keep fighting our Glorious Wars, and try my hardest to get rid of Social Security and Medicare.  I'm positive it will result in the most Patriotic Budget ever!

*Update:

Much to my disappointment, when enacting Republican policies they claim will rein in that deficit, I still end up with huge long-term and short-term deficits.  How can this be??

I will say the calculator makes it a little tricky.  First of all, it doesn't give me the option to do away with Social Security, Medicare, the Department of Education or the Federal Reserve.  Not sure who put this calculator together but they didn't do it with America in mind.  So I have to pick the next best Republican proposals, which are enact medical malpractice reform and make benefits stingier. Those apparently will save us $166 billion over the next 20 years.  Hardly a drop in the bucket for deficit reduction.

Taxes are pretty much a non-issue.  The only raise is a very modest one in adopting the Lincoln-Kyl estate tax proposal that only taxes estates above $5 million.  And I'm not even sure the GOP would support that.  If not the Kyl plan then there are no tax increases at all.

I did, however, cut foreign aid in half.  I totally whipped the piss out of ear marks by eliminating them all together. I cut federal employees pay by 5% (commie reds).  I also reduced the entire federal civilian workforce by 10%!  I got rid of 250,000 government contractors that were just living off the government's tit.  And then I cut state aid by 5% but would have done more if the calculator would have let me.

In all, my Patriotic Budget Deficit Reduction Plan is made up of 94% in spending cuts and 6% from tax increases.  Giving us a long-term deficit of roughly $1 trillion. But it's Patriotic and it's 100% Tough Guy so nothing else matters.

**Update:

Matt Yglesias tries to one up me by bringing in another deficit calculator and then blaming his sucky budget on the designers of the calculators.  His latest budget scheme is from CEPR in which Matt brings the deficit to 50% GDP by 2020.  Well Matthew, my CEPR budget is 48% of GDP by 2020.  Go tea bag that you islamofascistterroristliberal.

Ode To TPM

I'm assuming with the 10th anniversary of Talking Points Memo quickly approaching, many progressive bloggers are going to be paying their respects to Josh Marshall and the void he has filled.  Those receiving the most attention will be Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Greg Sargent, David Kurtz, and Dahlia Lithwick to name a few.  But there will be hundreds of lesser known bloggers who Marshall has inspired that will go mostly unnoticed during the celebration.  This blog being one of them.

TPM is the only site that I have intended to use as inspiration for blogging.  I read many others but none have garnered as much enthusiasm as Josh's.

I first came across TPM in 2004.  It was a brief visit while searching for something about the 2000 recount.  I think I was reading Too Close to Call by Jeffrey Toobin and went online to search for something about the recount and somehow ended up on TPM.  Like I said, it was brief and I only stuck around for a minute or so.  At the time I was busy myself managing a state senate race in deep south Illinois.  I had time for nothing other than campaigning.

Months later I would discover the site again.  It was one of those things I had put in the back of my mind hoping I would remember but never did.  When I found it the second time I bookmarked it.  This time it was during the 2005 GOP plan to privatize Social Security.  George Bush was fresh off of winning his first ever popular vote and his 51% mandate.  Josh and his staff of one person was instrumental at documenting nearly every single Republican quote, plan, strategy and citizen disenfranchisement taking place.  He created categories for Members of Congress labeling them the "faint-hearted faction" and so forth.  The momentum garnered from the success of the Democrats finally stopping-- for the first time-- the Bush-agenda was the beginning of their landslide elections the following year when they took back both chambers of Congress.  Marshall was the unsung hero, so he has to know what going unnoticed feels like.

Without getting too far into a bunch of boring memories, like the following year when Marshall single handily uncovered the U.S. Attorney firing scandal, what Josh brought to the web that Democrats and progressives lacked was a single talking point.  He kept Democrats on message.  He kept us focused on one or two important issues instead of the 40 taking place.  That's not to say that everyone lined up and followed whatever was being printed on TPM.  Most of the elites didn't.  But hundreds of thousands of rank and file base supporters did.  Instead of flailing on why Bush's plan was not a plan to fix Social Security but a plan to phase it out, progressives were able to read in a few minutes what was happening, why it all mattered and how to combat it.  It was a one-stop shop for staying informed.

The U.S. Attorney scandal should have brought Marshall a Pulitzer.  But the media elite would never allow it.

Today when I read TPM, I see it changing from a central talking point forum to a news-based journalistic adventure.  I'm all for the site branching in the form of original reporting but I do miss the original theme I think Josh has lost over the last two years.  I know he's been busy growing his site as visible from his shorter and shorter posts, but his direction and influence in the progressive community was monumental.  I can only imagine that the health care debate would have been much different if we would have had the TPM of 2005.  Maybe that's too unfair to Josh and his crew.  And it's not a criticism I want to lay on heavily.  But it is one I think is fair and I use it in hopes it brings them back to their original mission.

A hundred years from now, people may not use the word blog or even know what it means.  But I hope they can recall the contribution Josh Marshall provided to the early generation of web-based media and how one day, sleeping on his couch in days old clothes, one person really did change the world.

Letter to Bryan Fischer

To: bfischer@afa.net
From: chris@thefoldblog.com
Subject: Gen. 1:28

Rev. Bryan Fischer:

I was encouraged to see your recent blog post about killing the Grizzly Bears living in Yellowstone National Park. I for one am glad to see somebody finally standing up for our rights granted to us in Genesis which gives white males humans dominion over all the things earth related.  I too have been bothered by the recent unwarranted attacks by "savage beasts" without rhyme or reason.  Who are they to kill us?  We should be killing them; like you say by shooting "these man-eaters on sight."  That will learn them.

One thing liberals are not understanding is how do they think we got rid of the dinosaurs?  We all know that white males humans walked this earth with the dinosaurs and that we finally got tired of being killed by them and rebuked them in the word of Genesis 1:28 capping their ass until there were none left.  Maybe the Grizzlies should take notice.

I am, however, cautioned that you stopped short of calling for an all-out uprising against the beasts of this earth.  Did God only destroy half the earth with a flood the last time we were cursed?  Did God only call for one of Lot's daughters to have sex with him?  No, it was all or nothing.  God is not a halfway God.  I do hope that you re-seek your interpretation and find that God is calling all of us to wage war against all beasts and/or things that perturb us.

Your servitude partner in God (in a manly heterosexual way),

Chris

p.s., this does explain a lot

Rand Paul is For and Against Earmarks, Depending on the Meaning of Earmark

Furious with the Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall St. Journal, Rand Paul went on the defensive yesterday hopelessly explaining that despite vowing to fight for Kentucky's share of federal spending as long as it is doled out transparently, that he is still against earmarks.

Honestly, how can it be any other way?  Randy's entire political career is but one big contradiction.  He has been both against Medicare but for the part that pays doctors. He has been both against farm subsidies but for doling them out to farmers that need them.  He has been both against TARP but loves to keep his campaign cash in banks propped up by the federal government.  Now he claims that he'll fight for Kentucky's fair share of government dollars just don't call it pork.  This is the perfectly sane tea bagger version of America.  This is what the American people just voted to return back to power-- first rate liars.

What are earmarks if they are not money appropriated by the federal government? And as far as transparency, earmarks are some of the most transparent forms of congressional spending.  Don't take my word for it.  Take daddy Ron Paul's word for it:

Rep. Paul, who submitted just over 40 requests, typically works to decrease the size of the federal government and its involvement in state affairs. However, he thinks the earmark process is more transparent the regular budget process, according to the Times-Picayune. And since he believes Washington takes too much money from taxpayers, he feels it is "part of his job is to work hard in Washington, D.C., to get that money back to those constituents in any form that he can," according to his spokesperson.

Earmarks are not the Satan right wing nut jobs make them out to be.  They also only make up less than 1% of the total budget.  Cutting them out would take a $1.3 trillion deficit and make it a $1.299 trillion deficit.  But please don't tell the media all this.  I would hate to ruin their fantasy coverage where they forever portray Rand Paul and his cohorts as fiscally sane and completely responsible deficit hawks.

Rand Paul Now Says He Will Fight for Kentucky's Share of Pork Spending

This is no shocker. Bold all the headlines you want but this is not a shocker in the least bit.

Rand Paul, the anti-pork spender, small government crusader tells WSJ:

In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad "symbol" of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he says.

For months I told anyone that would listen that Rand Paul is not against Big Government. He loves it. He lies and says he hates it and that as a prestigious U.S. Senator he would fight to shrink it and reduce it and butt hump it until it bleeds and the media pretended right along with him.  In reality, Rand Paul can't get enough Big Government.

As a surgeon he has personally pocketed millions of dollars from Medicare, a federal program he says he wants to do away with.  No he doesn't.  He just says such things so he can fit the tea bagger mold.

Prior to running for senate, Randy told us that he was against a socialist farming market, aka farm subsidies.  After becoming the Republican nominee he changed his mind and stated he loved socialist farming.

All throughout the campaign, Randy claimed he despised TARP and that it was Big Government at its worst.  He hated TARP so much that he kept millions of dollars of campaign funds in a bank that was rescued by TARP money.  Paul also accepted donations from Members of Congress that voted in favor of TARP.  Paul is so against Big Government and socialist programs that he can't wait to get his hands on the money it helped circulate.

Anyone that believes or claims Rand Paul-- or any Republican-- is against Big Government, large deficits, out of control spending or massive amounts of debt is an idiot.  Complete idiot.

Why I Don't Care About Keith Olbermann

Because I don't. It's that simple. I don't watch his show. I don't care if he has a show or not. I don't need a millionaire loudmouth telling me what to say or think on issues. I honestly don't care what happens. What amazes me is that people on the left seemed more concerned about Keith being silenced than the fact that they just let the most progressive House in recent history get turned over to total nut jobs.  That's just a tad bit more important.

Republicans Are Still the Minority in Government

I'm a little confused at the latest Republican triumph story floating around, more specifically from Politico labeling President Obama as isolated unless he starts listening to Republicans.

Just because Republicans will take over leadership in the House come January, does not mean the president who is of opposite party and ideology has to govern like them. Not at all. Democrats are still the majority of government. For all practical purposes, the president's party is still the majority for this country.

None of that means Republicans don't get a say. Of course they do. They will very soon like own the House. They will be free to do what they want. They should govern with their agenda. I urge them to push their policies through as often as they wish. But the House is not the judge and jury of America. It is the lower chamber. It is only allowed to do what the Senate allows it and what the president doesn't veto. Having the House of Representatives doesn't mean your agenda should rule America. It only means you have a chance.  Democrats still have a greater chance, however.

iOS 4.2 for iPad is Ready and Heaven Sent

I've said before that I am a Microsoft guy. But Back in May I purchased the iPad wireless + 3G and changed my tech life forever.

The iPad truly has changed everything.  I take it to work, travel with it on long and short trips, use it extensively for meetings and presentations and even used it for this year's midterm elections.  It's portableness is crucial for its usefulness.  I can't go back.  [Note: it has not replaced my laptop.  It was never meant to replace my laptop.  But it has cut down on how much I use it.  For quick emails, calendar, and transporting data, the iPad is superior in every way.  If I'm going to actually type up a document or do a blog post like this one, I'll still use either my laptop or desktop.  There is no replacing either of those.]

There were some unfavorable limitations to the iPad when I first purchased it and I wrote about those which you can read here.  Last night I was able to get my hands on the iOS 4.2 update prior to it being released by Apple and it corrects nearly all my complaints, superbly.  Here's how you can get your update too!!

[Note:  You can wait about a week and I'm sure Apple will make it available via iTunes.  Or if you are like me and can't wait, here is what I did.]  This process is for Windows users only.

1. Search Google for iTunes 10.1 Beta 2, Windows x86 – 70.9MB

2. Then Search for iOS 4.2 GM (IPAD) – 549MB, version 8C134 is what you need.

3. Install the new version of iTunes. (back iPad up first if you want) you'll have to reboot.

4. Plug your iPad into your PC.

5. Run the new version of iTunes.

6. Click on your iPad while in iTunes, choose to update iPad while also holding down the shift key.

7. Select the iPad update file you just downloaded, IPSW 4.2, and let it install.

Takes about 10 minutes and you'll be ready to go.

Multitasking, folders, PRINTING, Airplay, much better keyboard, and so much more.  Here's a great write up about all the updates.  Definitely worth it for anyone using an iPad or thinking about making the purchase.

Southern Illinoisan Wants to End Popular Vote in Illinois

Image via Wikipedia

Stuff like this is blatantly retarded. I'm not even going to reprint the words on this page because they are so fanatically out of the mainstream and written with such a partisan tone that I don't want to waste the time and effort.

Essentially, this delusional newspaper, which just so happens to be the major newspaper in Southern Illinois, wants to do away with the popular vote in Illinois and institute some sort of electoral college. The rag paper is proposing this to purportedly curb the City of Chicago's influence in Illinois politics.

There's a reason why people in the rest of the state think those of us down in Southern Illinois are not very smart.  This editorial only adds to that stereotype.

Now, just so we all know, there's also a reason why this paper is called by locals the Southern Illusion.  This is a whole new level of stupid, however.

The only reason why The Southern's editorial board is proposing such a radical change to election laws is because the guy they voted for lost.  That's it.  If Bill Brady had won, the guy Gary Metro has been gushing about for months, then they would have been fine with the outcome and not proposed changing laws.  But since they lost and the evil Democrats are still in charge we must "break" them by legislating away the popular vote.

I wonder if the geniuses at The Southern realized that if we used an electoral system based on population, then Chicago would still have more votes.  And since Cook County is 40% of the entire vote it would still dominate elections and politics. Nearly half of the entire population of Illinois lives in one county.  The only way to break that up is to use a weighted system that grants smaller populations greater electoral votes, or to start counting livestock as three-fifths a person.

In all honesty, if Gary Metro wanted Bill Brady to win the best thing he could have done was not endorse him.

When You Don't Own It, They Will

It's been interesting reading all the punditry about how and why Democrats lost so many seats on Tuesday.  When it comes to reactions, at this point, I'm focused squarely on Democratic progressive reaction. I can tell you what the right is saying without even reading it. There's no point in learning their reasons.  They won. Let them have it. I'm a Democrat and proud of it and what's happening on my side is much more important to me.

For starters, history is against the tide of the president when it comes to his first midterm.  Did history play a role?  Yep.

Secondly, America is currently jobless.  When the economy is bad, the incumbent party always pays the price.  I think even if unemployment was at 7% Democrats would have still lost seats just not the House majority.  People want things to get better.  People want jobs.  And people are sick of Congress giving themselves pay raises, running up huge amounts of debt, letting bankers off scot-free and things not getting any better for them.  They are past their breaking point when it comes to ineffective government.

Most importantly, never bring a knife to a gun fight.  In other words, ineffective messaging proved consequential.  Instead of directly taking on the health care debate, Democrats stood speechless.  Instead of celebrating their successes ( and there were many) Democrats treated them like failures.  Maybe the easiest debate to ever frame, in my view, is one where one side gets to fear monger while the other side sits idle.

By this I don't mean out-crazy the crazy.  You don't have to fight smears with smears.  There was no need to fight back with smears to defend a piece of legislation that expanded health care to 32 million people, reduced the deficit and was completely paid for.  If you have to smear your opponent to defend that then you have taken for granted people's coherent ability to think for themselves proving you deserve to lose.

No where did I see a single Democrat beg to differ about HCR being a government takeover.  If it was a government takeover, why are hospitals privately owned?  Why aren't doctors and nurses now federal employees?  Why does the legislation require 300 million Americas to buy private insurance instead of a government-run type? Actually, where is the government-run insurance program even at?

There was no answer from Democrats, that I saw, when their accomplishments were treated like socialist takeovers.  This only led to the confusion being abated by the other side.

There were many factors playing against Democrats this year.  None proved a greater liability than not being proud of what you have accomplished and daring somebody to question you on it.

Bringing Your Country to Its Knees Has Nothing on Name Calling

• The worst terrorist attacks in world history killing over 2,000 of your people?

• Personally ordering the invasion of a country that had nothing to do with those attacks?

• Instituting torture as a state-sanctioned policy of America?

• Watching the near destruction of one of your cities by a hurricane while the very agency you put in charge of relief did nothing for days allowing over 1,500 Americans to die?

• Presiding over the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression?

• Being the only president since the Great Depression to have the Dow lose 40% of its value during your tenure?

• Having the lowest approval ratings since the advent of polling?

None of that tops being called a racist by a press-hungry entertainer that pretends to be a thug? That's just how out of touch George W. Bush was and is.  Why are we putting these people back in charge?

Elections Validate Tea Bagger Movement as Republican

Assessing tea bagger influence on the election can be a hairy thing. Since there is no real central organization to link tea bagger candidates to, the task is more often than not a guessing game. Does a candidate that merely acknowledges the tea bagger movement like Tim Griffin in Arkansas really count as a tea bagger candidate?  That's one of the many problems when trying to decipher what's going on in the electorate.

Just for fun, I say let anyone who wants to be equated with the tea bagger crowd have it.  Whether or not they swear allegiance to it is beside the point.  If, for example, Griffin in Arkansas wants to be known as a tea bagger then more power to him.  It's his choice.  I see no point in making lists judging just how tea baggers fared in this year's elections.  Why?  Because in every case, every single campaign in the country, the person running as a tea bagger ran as a Republican.  They ran not on the ticket of the Tea Party.  Not as a candidate nominated by a third movement political organization.  Oh no, not at all.  Every single one ran as a Republican; belonged to the Republican Party; and will caucus with the GOP in January. 

This election validates everything I've been saying about the tea bagger crowd since day one.  They are Republicans.  They are people who voted for George Bush twice that are mad a Republican is not still president.  They are simply the motivated faction of the GOP.  There's nothing wrong with that.  I'm not belittling them.  But there's no evidence to suggest that they are part of a separate movement brought about by a classical understanding of our nation.  They are Republicans plain and simple.  They run as Republicans.  They vote Republican.  In every factual scenario where reality takes place, if you vote, caucus, and belong to the Republican Party you're a Republican.

Quinn Wins

AP calls it for Democrat Pat Quinn. Chalk one up for the good guys.

*Update:

CNN follows suit.

Deep Thought

Is it any coincidence that the Dow is up 150 points or so just two days after Republicans took back the House??? I think not. Sign from God??? I think so.

Let Them Have It

Matt Yglesias makes a brilliant observation about the next two years for President Obama:

The point is, it’s a great big country located in the middle of a great big world. There’s more to life than the United States Congress and deep engagement with the legislative process is not a politically rewarding undertaking. So let it go. Staff up the White House with people interested in running the executive branch and focus on doing a good job. Let the Senators fight with each other on their own.

Exactly. There's no point, or reason, for the president to play party leader anymore. He's the executive. He's the leader of the country, not Congress or the DNC.  Let the GOP handle the House.  Let what's left of Harry Reid handle the Senate.  Stay out of the legislating bargaining process and focus on running the country with the policies you've already put into place.  It was a lesson Bill Clinton had to learn the hard way too.  There's no time for President Obama to have his head buried in Capitol Hill.  The absolute last thing the GOP wants is to own legislation.  Let them have it.  They earned it.  It's theirs.

Quinn's Lead Grows

Maybe the only race I cared the least bit about, the Illinois governor's race, is looking all but over. I just got a text from a Quinn campaign manager saying with 100% of precincts reporting Quinn's lead is now 19,561.  Thank you Illinois.

Republicans Own the Day

No other way around it, Republicans levied a huge referendum on the president last night by capturing over 60 house seats and narrowing the field in the senate. The net overall pickup in the house is monumental in numbers not seen since 1948.  Congrats to the GOP for their huge victories.

Notes on the Election

I'm going to be way too busy working on campaigns to do any blogging for at least the next 48 hours. Before I go, I wanted to outline a couple thoughts on this year's probable outcomes and what it means for the next two years.

1. In all likelihood the GOP will take back the House. At this point I think the senate is in their grasp but they are more likely to pick up 8 seats rather than 10. Though anything can happen and certainly this is the year for it to happen. Personally disappointed I will be but devastated I will not.  History is against the incumbent president's party in mid-terms with George Bush in 2002 being the only president since FDR not to lose seats.  It's a cycle that seems to be perfectly on the normal side for this year.
    
2. Whatever the outcome, I'll say again just like I did in 2008 when the Democrats swept power, that elections are not revolutions and when you have them every two years they simply mean government is democratically controlled.  In 2008 I wrote:  "Do not treat this as a mandate for the country because it isn't. Do not treat this as a revolution because it isn't. Do not treat this as political capital because it isn't. Do not treat this as a permanent majority because it isn't. This historic event is an opportunity to serve the greatest country in the world granted to Barack Obama and his Party by the people. It is not a God-granted destiny to the DNC. This new government will have no more claim to power than the people will allow it."
   
   The same is still true today.  Republicans shouldn't take their victories as proof that God is leading them or that they will retain power forever, as they have in the past.  At most it means for the next two years the American people have put them in charge of some facet of the federal government.  Use it wisely. Take the trust the people have given to you and do what is right for America.
   
   
3. Your opposition is not the enemy.  I do not wish for Republicans to fail. That's childish, counterproductive, stupid, and only undermines our entire country.  People with that sort of mindset are the embodiment of what's wrong with this country.  The GOP really needs to stop with labeling Democrats as an enemy of America.  We are not.  Even though I oppose nearly everything the GOP stands, I in no way believe them to be an enemy that wants to destroy my country.  I know full well that if the Repubs take over the House that they will have an agenda that I personally oppose.  They will have every right to try and pursue their agenda.  That's how government operates.  That's what elections are all about.  And even though I oppose their top ticket items like privatizing Social Security and defunding the Affordable Care Act, I still do not think if they are successful that America will cease to exist.  Will it be different than I had hoped?  Sure.  But not destroyed and not ruled by an enemy occupying the government.
   
   
4. I'm actually at ease with a Republican takeover.  I'm all for oversight and have always considered a one-party government to lack the necessary oversight needed for a republic.  But if Republicans treat this as a chance to remove President Obama and continue to attack him as un-American and as having an agenda designed to destroy our country (like they did in the 90s), I wish them all the mercy in the world because 2012 will not be favorable to them.  We can't have two years of impeachment hearings.
   
   Use this unique opportunity to legislate your agenda, not your political revenge. When Democrats took over in 2006, there was not one single hearing on President Bush.  Not one single independent council.  Not one single committee to investigate the president.  Democrats focused on raising the minimum wage, expanding health care to children, on implementing the 9/11 recommendations, on expanding stem cell research.  They legislated their agenda and even allowed a historically unpopular president to do his job as well.  Revenge was at the ballot box.  And it needs to stay there.

Those are my thoughts before I depart for three days of no sleep.  Whatever happens America will be okay.  There is no end, no occupation, no enemies in charge, just people with different ideas.  This is our system of government, not a anomaly despite it.  We should be thankful we have it and that it works.  Every two years the American people get to decide who they want to run their government. This is democracy at work.  Calling it anything else just because your party didn't win is a grave injustice.