Repeal this.

Newt Gingrich wants to repeal health care reform. So claims about every republican since it passed several weeks ago. Many have since backed down from this stance. So my question to you, Newt, which part would you start with? Allow insurers again to discriminate against people with health conditions? Take away tax breaks for small businesses? Stop helping poor people with their health insurance premiums? This sounds good to many hard-core conservatives, but to most of the country, this will not fly. You tout this bill as being unpopular, even when most of America supports its core elements. When you look at the breakdown of who will be receiving the most help under this bill, you'll find most of these guys are represented by republicans, so I'm not sure if they'd even like this.

Palin-Bachmann in 2012?

OK this just scares me. Now, don't automatically think I am being biased in saying this. I am predisposed against both of these people because of their ideological stances, yes, but I also would not advocate for this for other reasons. These two women come from the ideological right wing of American politics. I mean far right. Not as far right as the Illinois Nazis from the Blues Brothers, but far right enough to put gun targets on a map of democrats that voted for health-care reform. Far right enough to call for investigations into the un-American activities of congressmen. This is not the country we are.

It is like electing Jim DeMint (most conservative in the senate) as the senator from Rhode Island. It is like electing Dennis Kucinich as the mayor of Boise. Whoever is elected to the only nationwide office should represent a centrist, center-left or center right ideological position. That is why I believe Mitt Romney, though likely unable to compete in a closed GOP primary, would be a responsible choice to be the party's standard banner. He, unlike this pair, has actual experience dealing with some crucial issues such as health-care, the economy and taxes. He is a conservative that our country could live with.

Now, democrats, think twice before you pray for these two to become the Republican presidential nominees so we have a landslide victory in 2012 for Obama. If it is discovered that Obama is having an affair two days before the election, there is a good potential for our country to be in for some serious trouble.

The problem with lines in the sand? They get washed away by the tide.

As many of you may recall, back in the early stages of the health-care debate, the Congressional Progressive Caucus claimed they had drawn a metaphorical line in the sand over whether the bill included a public health insurance plan. To the disappointment of many liberals, they eventually caved and voted for the bill lacking this public option. Many have accused Rahm Emanuel as being the architect of Obama's "ignore liberal demands and they will still vote for the bill" strategy. Sadly to say, Rahm Emanuel is completely right.

Now The Hill is reporting that house liberals are jettisoning this strategy and encouraging the negotiations in the senate over the climate change/energy bill. That isn't to say for those of us who favor a strong cap and trade bill, or even a carbon tax, this is bad news. The public option fight over health-care actually did win many concessions, such as funding for community health centers. Without the appearance of a strong liberal bloc, the bill will lurch to the right.

I don't actually think that liberal lawmakers are weak for not putting their foot down over cap and trade. The fact of the matter is that republicans and conservadems don't even want a climate change bill in the first place (with a few notable exceptions). The conservative democrats at least would probably just wish Obama would not bring up any sticky issues at all. Many of their constituents don't even believe in global warming. It is one thing to negotiate with people with the same concerns as you, it is another to negotiate with those who don't even want a bill in the first place. Drawing a line in the sand will only kill the bill, and the liberals are the only ones who don't want that to happen.

Why is anybody even paying attention to these guys?

For those of you who don't know, the Tea Party is the grassroots movement that seeks to restore fiscal responsibility and lower taxes to America that started on tax day last year. They have dominated the headlines based on their appearances at the health-care oriented town hall meetings and protesting the bill that emerged from congress. They have been further enshrined by the "liberal media" as the core opposition to Obama's agenda. I won't discuss this movement that much on this blog, because I think they are the same forces that have formed the core of American conservadom for over 50 years. Take their founder, Dale Robertson:

I really hope I don't have to add anything else here.

The Stalinist purge of the week goes to... David Frum!

I have always admired the political insight of David Frum. I don't really agree with the guy on many issues, but I think he is one of the few conservative voices that is somewhat objective. He was the guy arguing the republicans overplayed their hand on health care reform by blocking the bill rather than trying to make it better. Well, looks like this obvious truth is too much for the base to handle and he has now been fired by The American Enterprise Institute, the political think tank he worked for.

He made a good point today about the inverted relationship between the conservative media outlets (Fox News, Rush). He rightly claims that they have dominated the direction of the Republican Party since Obama came to power, essentially making them puppets. Daily Kos has a good post on this article with a recent interview with Frum.

I think what his departure from AEI shows us is the type of dissension that is tolerated by the conservative media and the Republican Party. As he rightly points out, the party is being pushed further and further to the right at the cost of the moderate wing. For those of us who like to see liberal social and economic policies, this is good news, as a radical party can never win an election. For those of us who like to see a unified country meeting our numerous challenges together, you're out of luck.

This should have given Republicans a Boehner

Sometimes being a progressive supporter of Obama is harder than others but last week gave me some confusing signals. On one hand, we had the opening of new offshore drilling areas, and on the other we had new fuel efficiency standards. Now this could be taken as a nod to both ends of the political spectrum on energy security, but my intuition says its a strategic choice. The decision to increase fuel efficiency standards is a very wise thing to do, though not as wise as say, slowly increasing the gas tax. If we are to get serious about energy independence, the first step is to use less energy. Now, I can see that the opening of offshore drilling areas is probably the acceptance that we will always need some oil, even with higher fuel efficiency standards. Offshore drilling is how we can produce that oil locally. As much as I agree with this, I think this is a huge mistake. We will run out of oil eventually, we all know this, and having oil platforms off of Rehoboth Beach will not solve this problem. This oil could be used for much better uses, such as a national reserve, or a revenue source to diversify our energy profile.

By the way, the fact that John Boehner is not jumping up and down at this prospect is completely ridiculous. Party of no indeed.

What's missing in the debate about Citizens United v, FEC

Arguably the most important judicial action to strike down a federal law happened this fall with Citizens United vs FEC. The case struck down a core part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform that was passed in 2002. This essentially reverses a hundred year process of regulations on union and corporation spending in federal elections. The court held that this is a violation of the first amendment right to free speech.

Liberals and conservatives alike have criticized this as a prime case of judicial activism led by the conservative Chief Justice John Roberts. Much of the criticism has drawn from the fact that this allows an unprecedented increase in the sway of business over the legislature and hence, policy. What I think is surprising is that nobody has mentioned the most troubling issue of the ruling, the fact that it was business regulations that were stuck down, not individual regulations.

Now with businesses and unions able to spend as much as they want on elections, why can't individuals? In upholding the principle of freedom of speech, it was businesses that got priority, not citizens of the United States. Is SCOTUS somehow saying business speaks for the American people better than the American people? I think if you ask anybody in this country, they would certainly disagree. What principally concerns me is the pandering to business that this ruling shows. I fundamentally disagree with allowing business spend freely in elections, but if you must let them, at least let the average American do the same.