Who created this deficit, really?

From the Center for Budget Policy and Priorities comes the unexpected news that the Obama Administration policies have had little impact on the federal deficit after all. A new report released shows the deficit would barely top 3 billion dollars if it were not for the policies of the Bush 43 Administration. The TARP program is projected to be close to deficit neutral as the money is paid back, the recovery measures will be paid for in increased tax revenue, and the economic downturn will eventually subside. The enormous tax cuts enacted by the Republican Congress will balloon the budget shortfall and the ongoing wars in Iraq/Afghanistan will further sink any hope of fiscal solvency.

The first implications of these findings is it builds a strong case for deficit hawks to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. The UI extension in the senate would extend the tax cuts for all but the wealthiest of Americans. Both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have shown an ambivalence about passing a tax extenders bill without an extension of Unemployment Insurance. The second implication of this data is it could somehow translate into an opportunity for the Democrats to regain the upper hand on spending and the deficit. However, the Republicans will likely criticize the "liberal media" for twisting the data as usual.

You won't see the GOP filibustering defense spending

First, it was Jim Bunning blocking an unemployment benefit extension because the cost of it was not offset. It ended up passing. Then they blocked it again, this time with additional support from their caucus. It also ended up passing. A further unemployment benefit extension is now about to come up for a vote, with Republicans vowing once again to block it unless the cost is fully offset by spending cuts. The Senate adjourned for their recess without voting on the measure, so on June 2, nearly 200,000 people will lose their unemployment benefits. This cuts nearly 200,000 people a week off from the money they need to put food on their table, their health insurance and their livelihoods. This is all to make the point that deficit spending is wrong.

Let's put this in perspective. The Republicans began this deficit with two wars which were not paid for. War funding is essentially a benefit program. The money goes to pay for the deployed soldiers, their equipment and their well being. This is a social support program paid for by deficit spending. See any parallels? If the Republicans were actually trying to make a point about deficit spending they would block votes on ALL spending bills, not only unemployment benefit extensions. Furthermore, blocking unemployment benefits at a time when near 10% of the working population is unemployed is a completely reprehensible thing to do. Just as it would be completely unforgivable to cut soldiers off from their supplies.

Dem leadership battle shows itself in immigration debate

Ever since Harry Reid's reelection prospects headed south, two top Democratic senators have been pushing for his position as Senate majority leader. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Richard Durbin (D-ILL) have been quietly building support for the leadership battle that will ensue if Harry Reid is defeated. Charles Schumer was chairman of the DSCC during the 2006-2008 election cycles and many senators owe him their job. Richard Durbin is the Senate majority whip and second ranking Democrat. There are absolutely no notable ideological differences between the two men. They are also roommates. This allows the race to avoid becoming a repeat of the 2006 House leadership battle, when moderate Representatives voted for John Murtha and liberals voted for Nancy Pelosi.

The split between the two men has showed itself on the issue of immigration. Charles Schumer is leading the charge with a comprehensive immigration bill. Durbin, however, is pushing for his DREAM Act. This bill would grant citizenship to U.S. born aliens who joined the military or completed college. The passage of either bill would undoubtedly give the upper hand to whichever author prevails, therefore watch for this battle to heat up in the coming weeks. This conflict comes as Harry Reid's standing appears to be improving. The GOP front runner is bogged down in controversy and the second pick is substantially weaker against Reid.

My take is the issue of immigration has been handled so sloppily by the Democrats, it would be better to leave a comprehensive bill for a later date. The DREAM Act would do well to appease angry Latinos, notably Louis Gutiererrez, while prolonging the real immigration fight for next year. The Democrats have a lot on their plate right now, from energy legislation to gay rights issues. Furthermore, immigration is an area in which finding Republican cosponsors will be relatively easy. Next year Democrats will see their majorities substantially reduced, and immigration could act as a good bipartisan issue to tackle in the first months of the 112th Congress.

Big tent parties require big tent policies

Political parties often have a decision to make about whether to adopt a certain group's stances on issues, or cede their votes. The Democratic Party resoundingly won over African-American voters in the 1960s when they passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Democratic Party won over women when they supported the equal rights amendment to The Constitution, which eventually failed. As gay rights activists began to mobilize in the 1980s, the Democrats embraced their agenda with open arms. The Republicans continued to maintain their hold on their traditional demographic, upper/middle class white males. Since the 1980s, they have not won over any further emerging groups, with the possible exception of white evangelical Christians. The next group to be won over by a party will be Latino voters.

Democrats have been winning the battle over the Latino vote. Barack Obama won over 60% of the Latino vote in 2008. This kind of resounding electoral victory will only be intensified with conservative antics such as the 2010 Arizona Immigration Law. Latino voters are one issue voters. They will essentially support any party which signs on to comprehensive immigration reform. At this point, this is is the Democrats. Republicans previously supportive of immigration reform such as John McCain have backed off the issue due to right wing pressure. At the same time, Chuck Schumer is currently pushing a comprehensive immigration bill with widespread support among his Democratic colleagues.

It is impossible to create a big tent coalition without having many diverse views included. The Republican Party cannot become a viable alternative unless they stop pandering to their shrinking demographic base. This means endorsing progressive immigration reform.

Why were we even talking about repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the first place?

Rand Paul, the winner of the Republican Senatorial primary in Kentucky, has since made statements indicating he is opposed to several portions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The main title he was referring to the title which bars racial discrimination in private enterprise. He made the statements while being interviewed by Rachael Maddow of MSNBC and has come under fire from liberals and conservatives alike. Conservatives have gone as far as criticizing Rand Paul for not committing to a repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Liberals, such as Jim Clyburn (D-SC) have called his comments "appalling."

Nonetheless, this debate over his comments couldn't come at a worse time. Portions of the voting rights act were almost struck down earlier this year in a closely watched Supreme Court decision. Not many people are still talking about it, but George W. Bush pushed for the privatization of Social Security less than 10 years ago. These pieces of legislation form some of the most important achievements in the history of the United States. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is so important to who we are as Americans it is even taught so in public school textbooks.

So why are we even talking about it as if it is a campaign issue? It increasingly appears the political climate is moving closer and closer to what it was 100 years ago. We don't have to be moving backwards. This country was built on freedom, equality, and individual opportunity. Any person who claims to oppose such core aspects of Civil Rights legislation oppose these fundamental principles. Let's send a message to these politicians that we do not want our country going back 100 years.

Wall Street Reform fails to garner 60 votes needed to end debate

In what is possibly a sign of trouble to come, Senate Democrats have failed to achieve the 60 votes needed to move their "Wall Street reform" bill. The opposition comes from both the left and right, though it is widely expected the measure will gain the 60 votes needed to move it to conference once the differences have been settled between various senators and the leadership. Those voting "no" on the cloture motion but expected to votes "yes" eventually include Russ Feingold (D-WI), Maria Candwell (D-WA), and Scott Brown (R-MA). Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and George Voinovich (R-OH) are both considered gettable votes based on previous statements they have made regarding the bill. Additionally, Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME) both voted to end debate.

What Christopher Dodd (D-CT) said earlier this month, that financial reform has been a uniquely non-partisan issue, seems likely to be true. The Senate Republicans who are considered in play are all considered fairly moderate, and most have a history of supporting the Obama Administration on key issues. The bipartisan support for this bill stands in contrast with statements John McCain and Lindsay Graham made earlier this year, which indicated bipartisanship would be dead for the remainder of the 111th congress because of the health care debate. Clearly it is not. These moderate Republicans in the senate may be what is left of the once noble GOP who knew how to compromise and did what is right for the country.

In contrast with these moderate GOP voices, Mitch McConnell blasted the "government takeover" of the financial industry. We have heard this argument repeated for every single controversial piece of legislation which has come up these last two years. It is one thing to be prudent about spending, it is another to not want anything done at all. The fact of the matter is, Mitch, you were elected to the United States government. Any decision you make is a government intervention. If you want so little government intervention, go work for a multinational corporation.

Update: The Senate has now passed the measure on a vote of 69-39. Chuck Grassley, Arlen Specter and Scott Brown joined the Senators previously supporting the measure. The measure now moves to conference committee with the House where the differences will be reconciled in the coming weeks.

Rand Paul wins Republican senate nomination in Kentucky

It is no surprise to anybody that Rand Paul has won the Republican nomination for senate against establishment candidate Trey Grayson. Though not suprising, the result is very significant. Rand Paul is well known to be a Tea Party movement sympathizer, even going so far as to quote Tea Party members during his victory speech earlier tonight. He has been riding a wave of anti-establishment anger in Kentucky, as Trey Grayson received the endorsement of its other senator, minority leader Mitch McConnell. He is currently the second Republican primary contender to lose because they did not get cozy enough with the Tea Party movement. The first of course, is lame duck Utah senator Bob Bennett. If a Tea Party candidate can defeat an establishment Republican with more votes than have ever been cast in a Kentucky senate primary election, one could conclude the movement is one to be reckoned with. If I were the GOP leadership, I would be very scared right now.

Location, location.

Does this look familiar to anyone? It is a picture taken shortly after the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing that was eventually tied to a American militia movement sympathizer. The attack claimed 168 lives and destroyed an entire United States federal building. Lets look a little more recently. Does anybody recall on February 18th of this year, Joseph Stack flew a small plane into the IRS building in Austin, Texas? How about the shooting of two Unitarian Church members who were antagonized for having liberal social beliefs?

These events have nowhere near the gravity of incidents of international terrorism in the United States in our current media. The Times Square bomb plot of 2010 attracted so much media and political attention, it is worth thinking about more serious threats that exist within our own borders. The bomb plot in question killed nobody. Imagine if the Muhammad Omar flew a small plane into a federal building instead of Joseph Stack. The reaction would be enormous. Imagine if an Iraqi politician put gun targets on freshman Democratic representatives as part of his campaign. My point is that the reaction would be completely different.

Freaking out about international terrorism is a convenient way to distract the public from pressing issues within the United States such as right-wing violence, but it is not even close as dangerous as right wing extremism at home. What should happen within our politics is that all acts of terrorism should be treated with equal attention, no matter where they originated. A white southerner killing 5 people is just as invidious as Muhammad Omar doing the same. It complicates things when southern white extremists constitute the political base of one of our major political parties. That is a different matter, however.

Financial reform is an issue of unique agreement

This is strange. The financial reform bill has moved through the upper chamber with no GOP filibusters whatsoever. Many of the amendments, such as the Audit the Fed measure, have garnered near universal backing. The amendment in question passed the Senate 96-0. This is unheard of. During the health care debate, amendments were filibustered just to slow down the process. Furthermore, the bill has become more and more liberal as it has passed through the upper chamber. The health care and climate change bills, in contrast, become significantly more conservative when moving through the Senate. This is true of most legislative proposals. So my question is, what has changed?

The atmosphere certainly has not changed. Republicans are emboldened by the Democratic Party's dropping poll numbers and have been opposing Obama's agenda more than ever. I think the difference is the issue. The public is extremely angry over the greed of wall street, and headlines saying the GOP is obstructing wall street reform don't fly very well. Harry Reid made a uniquely good calculation by forging ahead without Republican votes. Earlier this month, when the motion to begin debate came up, the Republicans filibustered a total of three times before breaking. It seems the "liberal" media won them out once again.

Is there evidence of a Democratic Party surge?

This doesn't quite fit in with the Republican Party's narrative about the November midterm elections. The Democrats have regained the lead in the congressional ballot poll according to an Associated Press/GFK poll released today. This coincides with a surging approval rating for President Obama in numerous polls, including the Gallup Tracking Poll. Does this mean the Democrats are headed for less significant losses in November, and if they are, what is driving this reversal of fortune?

As Bill Clinton would say, it's all about the economy stupid. After recent economic reports, it's looking like the economy will be adding more jobs in the first two years of the Obama Administration than were created during the entirety of the Bush years. This should be sending shivers down Republicans' spines as they have been campaigning against the Administration's economic policies for much of the election season. This narrative will be difficult to hold once the economy is in a distinctive upswing, which looks more and more likely now.

One other conclusion is that the oil spill has solidified the public's opinion against the corporatism the Republicans in congress espouse. Rush Limbaugh telling his viewers the oil spill is not a problem may be acceptable for uber-conservative primary voters, but the average American really likes beaches in Florida (and maybe are worried about some dead sea gulls). The financial reform bill before congress could have this same effect. Republicans will have a hard time facing the voters if they outright oppose financial reform. The polls do not show a successful Democratic year, but may help to alleviate fears of a 1994- like disaster for the incumbent party.

Who will be riding the Ron Paul blimp in 2012?

There is a spirited debate over who actually constituted Ron Paul's base in the 2008 presidential primaries. Ron Paul successfully captured the young Republican vote and created much enthusiasm among this demographic. This is insignificant, however, as young Americans are overwhelmingly Democratic or independently affiliated. The key to Ron Paul's base is the current following of the Tea Party.

Ron Paul's son, Rand Paul, is currently the front runner in the Republican senatorial primary in Kentucky to fill the open seat of retiring senator Jim Bunning. He has never held political office before this campaign and shares many of the libertarian views of his father. He has quickly pulled away from the establishment candidate, Trey Grayson, capturing much of the die-hard Republican base that one needs to win any Republican primary fight. His campaign is relevant, because it is drawing on much of the Tea Party movement's enthusiasm and supporters.

So my question is, will Ron Paul run for president in 2012? And if he does, will he become the Tea Party insurgent for the Republican nomination? Ron Paul is no orthodox conservative. Instead, he is a paleo-conservative, a dying breed of anti-interventionist Republicans. It would be easy to criticize many stances he has taken which pitted himself against the neo-conservatives in his party, particularly on international issues. For instance, he opposes the Iraq wars and all foreign involvement. He also does not believe in free trade, favoring protectionism. Some of these stances could be criticized by the modern conservative base who love to point out flaws in a candidate's credentials.

Sarah Palin, once thought to be the darling of the Tea Party movement, is now completely irrelevant from the 2012 elections. Ron Paul could fill this vacuum of anti-establishment anger present in the primary electorate. It would be easy for him to overcome a moderate candidate such as Mitt Romney, but he would have to change some of his stances. It will be interesting to see if Paul molds himself into something more digestible, or continues to pursue his unique path of libertarianism. If the Kentucky senatorial primary stands as any lesson, it is likely that conservative voters will hop on the Ron Paul blimp, only to pull it down during the general election.

Just give up, Arlen

So it looks like Arlen Specter's blatant political opportunism is finally catching up to him. After trailing in polls against his conservative Republican primary opponent, Pat Toomey, he switched to the Democratic Party and has since become a reliably Democratic vote. This stands in contrast with his increasingly conservative voting record while a Republican senator. His current Democratic primary opponent, Joe Sestak, is running against his "false" issue stances and his coziness with both Obama and Bush.

I have never been a fan of Arlen Specter. Though I think moderate Republicans are essential to a working bipartisan coalition, Specter was becoming increasingly pressured by his base to be a reliable Republican vote. Now that he is a Democrat, he has been a reliable vote though there is nothing stopping him from resuming his "independent" voting record when the election is over. People like Arlen Specter are not the type of people we need in Washington. They respond to public pressure in the most manipulative possible way, putting their job ahead of millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans. Specter has been preserving his job since 1980, its time we elect somebody who actually represents the people of Pennsylvania.

Kagan won't have the conformation battle we predicted

Many liberals, including President Obama, predicted the Senate Republicans would try to block whoever he nominated for Supreme Court. This was part of his decision to choose one of his more liberal candidates, rather than a moderate such as Merrick Garland. One can question whether Kagan will actually be as liberal as Obama likely wants, but she is definitely not a moderate. Given the Republicans' recent track record on supporting Obama's agenda, this news is surprising. Several moderate Republicans are giving her good marks, indicating the GOP may not have the votes to block her conformation.

This is likely for several reasons. Moderate Republicans have much to lose by trying to play culture wars with the Supreme Court nominee. Grilling the nominee on abortion looks good if you're from Alabama, but middle class Bostonians may not judge it so highly. Also, there is the fact she is a woman. It would be easier to oppose the nomination of a woman if the court had 5 women. Opposing a woman from Harvard isn't as easy when she would be the third woman on the court. Lastly, many moderates don't want any more publicity about them opposing President Obama's agenda. Primary voters are much more riled up about economic issues, supporting a Supreme Court nominee won't cause them much harm. All in all, it looks like the conditions are right for a smooth conformation.

How can the GOP say they care about job creation after this?

This week, house Democrats began to move a bill they named the COMPETES Act, which would increase funding for science, research and training programs. This would lead to job creation in these areas. It would also lead to indirect benefits such as technological innovation, individual opportunity and a more specialized workforce. The GOP, acting in good faith of course, introduced a motion to amend the legislation with a provision which would prohibit federal funds from providing salaries to employees charged with pornographic offenses while at work. This began a snowball effect among moderate Democrats, and the amendment passed. This creates serious policy issues and therefore the bill has been withdrawn from the house floor by the Democratic leadership.

These kind of wedge issues have not been uncommon during the 111th United States Congress. During the healthcare debate, Republican Senators such as David Vitter, began introducing random amendments meant to divide the Democratic Party. One of these would have prohibited federal funds from providing Viagra for registered sex offenders. Though many of these steps should be taken, they are not introduced in good faith. Vitter publicly declared he introduced many of these with the goal of slowing the bill.

These kind of amendments do not belong in our national politics. When the Republican Party says they are serious about job creation, they should not be trying to sink Dem efforts to help put Americans to work.

Privatization of the military IS a bad thing

To the delight of liberals and anyone who knows anything about foreign policy, it looked like Blackwater Worldwide would finally be gone from our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This was after the 2007 Baghdad shooting in which Blackwater security personnel opened fire needlessly on a group of civilians, killing 17. Their license was revoked and those responsible were sent to court. Afterwards, the company changed its name to XE, and everybody forgot about the issue. They are somehow still operating in Iraq, however, as are dozens of other "mercenary" armies. Their primary duty is to assist in day to day security operations within Iraq's major cities. They have become so successful at their job that they have even begun to develop their own variants of armored cars, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and other sensitive military hardware.

Few have characterized the increase in private contractors in Iraq as the privatization of the military. I will do so here. Privatization has been happening throughout the bureaucracy over the last several decades. Private contractors are now tasked with many of the operations that our agencies used to do. This is problematic enough in areas such as public education, where school choice has led to racial and class segregation of schools, but in the military it is reprehensible for several reasons.

When the private sector comes into a market, they will almost always offer higher wages and better benefits than its public counterpart. In the military, this will be especially true, ceding the most qualified strategists and foot soldiers to the mercenary armies. The regular military, which is our REAL safeguard against foreign threats, will have a lessened potential to resist a foreign invasion. The mercenary armies do not and never will have the type of organization to conduct offensive military actions against sophisticated forces. The mercenary forces also make it difficult to organize an effective PR campaign with the local people on the ground. The U.S. Army does a very good job at this, employing interpretors and handing out candy. Blackwater shoots 17 people. Not very consistent. Another problem with having a divided armed forces would mean the military's scarce funds would be stretched even further. Having to fund another several forces within our funding structure is fine when there are only one or two contracting firms with a limited role within the country. If the trend continues, corporations like Blackwater will have a much larger role in our military. They will need more money to continue developing their technologies and organizational structure. It would be like splitting the cost of one army between two. Our regular armed forces would be shafted.

One darker issue is the issue of corporate power. Allowing the military to be controlled by large corporations like Blackwater dangerously undermines the authority of the United States government. Multinational corporations already control our legislative branch of government. Do we want to give them the armed forces too?

This is what is so surprising. Politicians go on and on about protecting our troops by continuing to fund expensive fighter aircraft, but ignore a serious threat to one of our most important institutions. Public education is in crisis because of privatization. We cannot afford to have the military follow that path, especially while we are engaged in two wars. Strengthening the military? Republicans, you want to be listening to this.

What the UK elections say about our current political climate

As polls close across the United Kingdom, the Conservative Party under David Cameron stands to win a plurality of seats in the House of Commons. The center-left Labor Party, under Gordon Brown, stands to take a hit in the polls due to public outrage over the government's handling of the global economic recession. A third variable in the equation is the center-left Liberal Democrats, who have surged since the debates and will undoubtedly become a swing vote in the hung parliament that most pundits expect. The UK election, though much different than our own midterm elections, can give us some insight into the current political problems facing the Democratic Party (US).

The Democrats and Labor are in similar situations. Both are center-left parties that have come to power recently after a string of bad decisions by the center-right party. Both of them held majorities during the economic crisis and therefore had to make a lot of tough decisions that apparently did nothing to improve the economy. Let me clarify that though the Democrats did not control the presidency during the crash, they controlled both branches of the legislature and later the presidency during the economic fallout that was caused by the crash. The main difference between the parties is that Barack Obama appears to be generally improving the position of the Democrats whereas Gordon Brown appears to be driving discontent with the Labor Party.

What is important is both of these parties stand to take a major hit in their respective elections, likely losing their majorities. It is easy to forget that neither of these parties caused the recession. The Democrats generally opposed recent efforts to deregulate the financial markets and the Labor Party had little to do with it as the problem originated in America. Pundits have been talking about polls that show something like 60% of Americans would vote out their incumbent representative or senator. In most of these cases, the incumbent will be a Democrat. It is not clear, however, that most of these independent minded Americans want to vote Republican either. Last time I checked, the Republican Party's favorability rating stood at 22% whereas the Democratic Party stood at 38%. A similar trend is happing in the UK. Many people don't want Labor, but they also don't want to vote Conservative. Conservative is the lesser of two evils in their eyes. But the funny thing about a parliamentary system is there aren't only two choices. Enter Liberal Democrats.

The Lib Democrats generally follow similar policies to Labor, though they favor a free market economy and other centrist measures. Generally speaking, if support is shifting from Labor to Liberal Democrats, it isn't the policies that are drawing support from Labor. This is most likely true in America. People want to blame someone for the harsh economic conditions, so they blame the ruling party. They don't, however, want their lifeline cut by a center-right party so they are confused. The bottom line is that if there was a strong third party in America, they would be surging right now. We would likely be better off because of it.

Lets help resurrect the New England Republican

The New England Republican is an endangered species these days, being forced out of their own party by a Southern Republican party far more conservative than it. This is not to say that there aren't anyone who is a Republican in New England anymore, on the contrary, there are far more Republican leaning people in a liberal state like Vermont than one would think. The big problem for the New England GOP is that these Republican voters aren't voting Republican in federal races. The prime example of this is the election of Bill Owens to fill the seat of John McHugh. The Republican candidate was Dede Scozzafava though she was eventually forced out of the race by Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman, handing the Democrats a victory in the conservative NY-23.

So why do I argue that we should be resurrection a moderate GOP? What benefit does this bestow on the progressive agenda? First of all, let me open by saying that Medicare passed the senate with at least 10 Republican votes. Where did these votes come from? The answer is moderate areas like New England. Progressive strategists hailed Howard Dean's 50 state strategy that attempted to make the Democratic Party competitive in every area of the United States. This works well when there is a landslide and ample campaign funds, not so well for most election years.

This leads me to believe that we should prioritize investments in candidates that are running against conservative candidates in areas where they are the only liberal candidate. Lincoln Chafee, a liberal Republican senator, was unseated in 2006 with help by the DNC and the DSCC. Why are we, as a Democratic Party, wasting money to oppose people who already vote with our party most of the time? A much better use of the money would be to protect and capture seats that would be occupied by conservative Republicans if they were not represented by Democrats. This would also increase the number of GOP moderates, leading to legitimate bipartisan cooperation and possibly a softening of the GOP leadership's ability to rigidly control its members' voting patterns. Olympia Snowe commented after Arlen Specter's primary switch;

"I've always been deeply concerned about the views of the Republican Party nationally in terms of their exclusionary policies and views towards moderate Republicans."

By investing in races opposing conservative republicans, we could help change the GOP back into a party that we can work with in solving the country's issues. We won't get back our New Deal Coalition, but we can try to emulate its strategy.

We dare you to oppose this! No, not you, Ben Nelson..

On Monday night, the Democrats held the first of a series of test votes to attempt to bring the financial reform bill to the floor for debate and amendments. As expected, the Republicans voted against the motion to proceed as a bloc, setting the process back several days. They were joined by the conservative Democratic senator, Ben Nelson, who has been trying to appease his Nebraska voters since his vote for the health care bill in December. The Republicans have been claiming that their unified vote against the motion to proceed is because they want the bipartisan negotiations involving Bob Corker, Chris Dodd, and Richard Shelby to continue. These talks had previously collapsed after going on for several months in which the Republicans came back to the negotiating table more than three times.

Putting the politics of the financial bill aside, what the Republicans are doing here is completely hypocritical. In John Boehner's closing speech against the HCR bill, he frequently cited back room deals and closed negotiations in his opposition. By voting against the motion to debate and amend the financial reform bill, Republicans are essentially saying that they want to postpone debate on the bill in favor of closed door negotiations. What these senators do not seem to understand is that voting against a motion to begin debate is a vote against doing anything about the problem the bill is addressing. If you are really committed to solving the problem, the first step is to add your ideas through amendments on the senate floor.

I don't think I need to say this, a solid majority of Americans support this already.

Why Republicans won't be celebrating for long

The Republicans have been going on and on how they're actually winning the congressional ballot for once. This means that the Republicans are even farther ahead than this measure shows, because it tends to overstate Democratic advantages. So what happened here? Only a year ago, we were hearing claims that the Republicans were dooming themselves to the electoral fringe for a generation. Does this mean that those arguing for an ultra-conservative GOP should feel vindicated by this?

They absolutely should not. The Republicans are going to win the November 2010 midterm elections, and possibly take back the House. They might even succeed in taking the senate. Who knows. All we do know is, the Republicans have absolutely no strategy beyond 2010. Once they wrestle the purse of government from the Democrats, there is no grand plan to save this ailing country. This will keep them from ever lasting in power very long. If you don't believe me, why do you think the GOP is even more unpopular than the Democratic Party right now? It's because the Republicans have done such a good job at critisizing everything the Democrats have accomplished that people don't know what to think?

Grandma killers, or the party of George Bush? Which would you choose?

Warning! Somehow this will lead to sexual perversion and pedophilia!

In another victory for proponents of gay/lesbian rights in the United States, Obama has ordered the HHS to mandate hospitals that receive federal funds to allow same-sex couples the same hospital visitation rights allowed to heterosexual couples. The only thing I can ask is, why is this only happening now? I can understand why some people may feel gay marriage, adoption and civil unions are immoral; but why should a move like this even be controversial? This is a decision that affects only the patient and his/her partner in the strictest sense. If your partner is sick in the hospital, what moral concern is it of some right winger that you go and visit them. The GOP talk on and on about patients' rights in healthcare reform, why not start by embracing this.