Time to Impeach DTrump--If Only Democrats in Congress Grew a Spine by Projecting Strength & Leadership

After much anticipation, Mueller testified in Congress, and unless you lived under a rock in the last year, he didn't say anything that we didn't already know. The impact of his testimony is yet to be determined, but this show was below mediocre in my opinion. The Dems need to find some new facts, like Trump's tax returns, and get Trump's lawyer and others who witnessed the obstruction of justice by Trump to testify.

As far as the impeachment goes, I admit I've been going back and forth, calculating the political angle. I'm now in the corner of: impeach the motherfucker!  Here's the rationale...
  
It'll suck the oxygen out of the room, but it's not like Congress is really using it to pass legislation with the House and Senate under different party control. They better start as soon as after the Summer recess. Trump and the Republicans will continue to say it's a "witch hunt" and basically the president is above the law. It won't matter. It doesn't matter whether Congress does much anyway. There's nothing the Dems could do to please Trump and the Repubs.

Most voters behave like tribal members, which means they vote their party no matter who's in charge. More so the Repubs. Dems stay home. The few centrists, who can decide a close election, may be persuaded by other impressions, like how the economy is performing. They don't understand how our political system is structured and the limitations of divided government. So, Pelosi is probably trying to appeal to them--pass legislation (well, the House passes it, the Senate rejects it), instead of impeaching the prez.

I believe you win majorities in order to do something big. Squabbling with the Senate for who's responsible for the mess, is lost in the minds of the public. Obama wasted a great opportunity in his first 2 years when the Dems had control of whole Congress by being too soft and trying to appeal to the Repubs--which of course was an utter failure. He delegated to Congress his health care and immigration reforms. OK, the ACA gave millions needed health insurance but failed to deliver universal coverage and what Obama & the Dems had campaigned on. Immigration reform? Hahaaaa...argh.

The only reason for not proceeding with impeaching the orange buffoon is that Pelosi can't get 218 votes through the House. But this is because she's been wavering on the issue. The Repubs would have already started impeachment against a Dem prez. They did it to Clinton for what we think today to be a laughable reason. We now have Trump who has obstructed justice over 10 times, lied under oath, and other crimes and misdemeanors.  It's a moral obligation to impeach even if he won't be removed before 1/20/21 when the new prez will take over.

The Dems should show some spine. They're already too late in exposing Trump's tax returns. The country needs to know whether he has followed the law, and whether he may be subject to blackmail by foreign powers. Who's financing Trump's frauds and business failures?  Mueller gave Congress more than it needs to proceed and hold Trump accountable.

I understand that 34 Dems came from districts Trump won but I hardly think they won in 2018 because any Repubs voted for them. Maybe a few centrists, but it was Dem voter turnout that did it. Which brings us to the question about the best Dem strategy for 2020...   About 9% of Obama voters went for Trump, and another 7% didn't vote at all in 2016 because they didn't find HRC appealing enough.  Had Dems scored the same turnout in 2016 as they did in 2012, the election would have been different. 

The most sensible strategy to me will be strong Dem campaigns in PA, WI, and MI, and excite the base to come out and vote. Yes, it should be about Trump and how unqualified and dangerous and vile he is. Campaign on health care, and sensible immigration reform--strong borders, humanitarian, but also an efficient way for imms who have been here long enough to establish roots to apply for citizenship. You will never get the racists, xenophobes, conservatives, and uneducated to change their perceptions about walls, immigrant crimes, job stealing, etc.

In a different universe where citizens are well-informed and engaged, you may be able to have rational discussions, based on facts, evidence and reason. We are in a universe where there's no time to change people's minds about their important beliefs and perceptions during an election campaign. Therefore the game is to get your base out to vote! Simple, not easily done, but it will work.

Obama Sets His National Campaign in the SOTU Address

If you didn't watch the speech you probably heard tidbits about the president's immediate and long-term goals. I think his intention is to uplift the national sentiment about the economy and the future of the US. Gloom and doom, even if the outlook is bleak, doesn't bode well for those in charge of government. Obama made some sensible proposals for action the US must undertake if we are to be a successful country in the near future.

Is a country better off if its people are educated? Why does China, in proportion, more high school graduates than the US? Why Russia has more college graduates than us?

How about health? How come we spend more, per GDP, than any other country, but we're not the healthiest, we don't live as long as other advanced societies, and we have so many millions uninsured & under-insured? I'm not going to ask about quality of life questions, like stress, and general happiness...

During the SOTU address, I noticed that the Republicans stood stone-faced when the president mentioned a good provision of the new health care law, that insurance companies can't deny or drop coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Same face for the DADT repeal. In this they were joined by the military brass. Tsk.

Immigration reform is a necessary for many reasons, but I don't see how this tea party-infected GOP would support any immigration reform other than taking the "law & order" route of building fences and raiding companies for hiring undocumented workers. Even the Dream Act--giving legal residency to children who were brought into this country by the parents if these kids got an education or joined the US armed forces--will probably be opposed by the Republicans.

The future will come, but the question is how we get there. We have to choose our path wisely.

Those Who Wrecked the Car Want the Keys Back.... (Some Thoughts on the November 2010 Election)

It's the economy, stupid. September has been good on Wall Street but no so good on Main Street. Anywhere between 25 and 35% of our working force has felt the effects of unemployment since the Republicans were in office in 2008. The latter are saying now that the Dems haven't fixed the problems of the Great Recession in 1.5 years that they created when they controlled the government.

Unfortunately there's a big percentage of Americans who have short memory and float from side to side and often decide elections. They are low information voters, moved by impressions of power and outcomes. For the life of me, I can't see why voters would return control of the House to the Republicans. The congressional GOP has one strategy: to frustrate any Dem initiatives and make Obama one-termer. The hell with the country. Controlling one chamber (the House) will produce more dysfunctional government. Indecision, delays, bad laws, inaction, and a protraction of the economic crisis all are bad for Obama in 2012 and the Dems.


We can consider ourselves a bit lucky that the biggest threat to the Republican party right now is the tea parties. If it weren't for the teabaggers wrestling control from key GOPers, the Dems would also lose the Senate this year. Take for example Dem Harry Reid in Nevada. He would be trailing by double digits today if his opponent wasn't such a nutcase. Instead he's ahead by a couple points. 


Now, what has the Dem in the White House and those in Congress done? Not much. They have managed to alienate their most reliable and active base--the progressives and those groups that believed the country would finally get bold leadership to pull it our of the morass the conservatives had sunk us in. But, no such bold leadership came despite huge majorities, a huge electoral win, and high approval ratings when Obama took office in Jan. 2009. 

Drildo. Many voters will be satisfied (one way or another) in November

I've written lots on this wasted opportunity and how the Dems have been incompetent in managing their good fortunes after the last general election. Let's look to the future now. But, in a democracy with popular elections there has to be some kind of strategy, good communication with the public, and, yes, a clear & bold policy. The president usually wins public fights with Congress if he knows how to play the game. He has to be out there every day saying articulating a clear policy while pointing to the obstructionists. The current president should see how Clinton played the Republicans when they shut down the government via their congressional leadership.


The economy will be a major factor in this election and it ain't getting much better between today and election day. But, from Labor Day on the voters pay more attention to politics and begin to form their opinions. 

• Bigger than 5% points in polls by end of this month will be insurmountable by election day. Time to act is now.
• In a low turnout midterm election the more energized base produces huge advantage. Thus far, the Dem leadership has failed to energize its base. Why? Because, they shied away from legislation (jobs bills, tax breaks for the rich, immigration, etc) even if there are big majorities in favor of such bills. The Times has an article on college voters, here.
• Obama must set forth a clear agenda now and make a promise to implement it one way or another. He should establish clear objectives and send a clear message to the Republicans and Dems that he's going to be a stronger leader than he's been so far.

With fewer Dems in the Senate and a minority in the House it's imperative the Dems show more solidarity. Their electoral fortunes in 2012 will depend on this. And, the country will be better off. The Republicans are going to have a brawl with the teabaggers one of this days or the GOP will cease to exist as a party that represents a big chunk of the country. Tea party candidates are way out of the mainstream and I don't think they can sustain their initial success, but then again they may capture the GOP whose white, southern (regional) stronghold is shrinking.


The bottom line is who can convince the voters that they can do a better job with the economy after the November election. In theory there should be no contest, but in reality... well, we're seeing it right now. I just think there's a small (and getting smaller) window for the Dems to stem their loses and retain control of the House. Yet, I wouldn't hold my breath on this one.

SHAMEFUL! And, the Democratic Leadership in Congress is to Blame!

The Dems are afraid to tackle the immigration issue before the Congressional election this November so they sacrifice decency and common sense to the even more ridiculous Republican demands. The House failed to pass a bill that would give health care benefits to the 9-11 responders. The bill received 255 votes for and 159 against. Shame to those 159 politicians who voted against giving benefits to people who rushed to the scene in NYC and later worked at the site for the rescue/recovery/clean up effort. The Bush EPA, told everyone that the air at the World Trade Center disaster zone was OK to breathe. The Giuliani City Hall, and the Pataki state government failed to give adequate protection and alert the workers & emergency responders.

But, wait a second. Isn't 255 a bigger number than 159? How come a bill that gets a majority like this fails to pass, you ask.  Well, because the Dems brought it under a rule that required a 2/3 super majority to pass! Why? Because the Dems did not want to confront the issue the Repubs were raising: We should not pay for health benefits for any undocumented worker (I wonder how many there could have been) who without proper papers rushed to the scene to help out, got injured or breathed in the cancer-causing polluted air. Those bastards, they should die for helping out without having the proper visa!

Yeah, this is the absurd and obscene reason the Repubs used to oppose this bill. Oh, and to shield big business from paying taxes in the US. The bill was to be funded by ..ending the tax loopholes the multinational pharmas use to avoid paying US taxes! 

What a shame, shame, shame!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
I Give Up - 9/11 Responders Bill
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

A Study Case of Failure in Leadership. Yeah, it's the Democratic President & Congress! [Can They Recover?]

WARNING: The following video is funny. (oh, and it uses ..pedestrian language). Buffer the video if you don't have a fast internet connection.

F the Vote

Should every American have equal access to quality health care? This is the only question that matters in this debate. As for the money a proper universal coverage would cost we can certainly afford it. It all depends how we spend the money. Of course, if we spend 50 cents on the dollar for military purposes, they we won't afford it, but clearly it's an obvious matter of priorities.

Any number floated out there by proponents or opponents to reform sounds good to me. Let's say it's $1 trillion for the next 10 years? So what? It's $100 billion a year to cover 300-310 million Americans. It's probably less than $1 a day for each of us! Meanwhile, we're all charged five times that much for military expenditures. Are we buying so much more security--the kind that saves lives like proper and available medical care? We spend more that the whole world combined on military, yet we are not as secure, and, by the way, we aren't as healthy as other advanced democracies! But, we have a system that's heavily influenced by people who don't share in the burdens. Leaders send the kids of others into battle. They have great health benefits that the rest of us, apparently, don't deserve! And, they set up huge corporations that enjoy the profits in private pockets while the risk is often socialized!


We've tried the private insurance approach it hasn't worked. Like it didn't work when NYC had private fire companies. The health care system has failed 1/3 of the people in this country--either because they don't have insurance or they're under-insured. We all pay for this mess, well except for those few who rake in huge profits. This is the only advanced country where you can go broke (bankruptcy) because of medical bills. It has failed to contain costs and increase meaningful competition.

The health of the community is important. The other truth is, the current system is unsustainable. I work for a big private non-profit organization and we all have medical insurance through a private for-profit company. Our premiums have risen way faster that our wages. This has been the case since the 1970s, thus, the middle class has seen dramatic increases in the cost of housing, education, and health care. Actual wages (adjusted for inflation) have remained stagnant.


If this Congress passes a monstrous bill and president Obama signs, it will be disastrous--not only for the Democratic party but for our country since millions of Americans will be without health care, the costs will not be contained, competition won't improve, and young people (18-29), who are now heavily pro-Dem, will be forced to buy into a bad and expensive system or fined if they don't. Why, do you see a problem with this? Yeah, the future's so bright I got to wear shades..

Oh, wait, there's some good news from this! You can make lots of money by buying insurance stock! Have your noticed that their value has been going up since we got news of this great bill negotiated by our leaders?!!


UPDATE: I like Paul Krugman. He's an unabashed liberal and I usually agree with him. But, this economist and Nobel laureate makes the case for passing the rumored health care bill. I may not agree with him, but here's his piece:


"A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy. Declare that you’re disappointed in and/or disgusted with President Obama. Demand a change in Senate rules that, combined with the Republican strategy of total obstructionism, are in the process of making America ungovernable.

But meanwhile, pass the health care bill.

...

At its core, the bill would do two things. First, it would prohibit discrimination by insurance companies on the basis of medical condition or history: Americans could no longer be denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition, or have their insurance canceled when they get sick. Second, the bill would provide substantial financial aid to those who don’t get insurance through their employers, as well as tax breaks for small employers that do provide insurance.

All of this would be paid for in large part with the first serious effort ever to rein in rising health care costs."


There's a split among the progressives on what to do with the bill the Senate wants to pass. Some, like Krugman, say pass it now and amend it later. Others, like Howard Dean, say no!




On more thing. When will the Dems obtain such big majorities in both chambers of Congress plus the White House? Just wondering... I mean, if they can't pass meaningful reforms now, when will they? They'll be blamed for the financial troubles next year, especially if the unemployment figures don't improve. This is a great chance in a long while to pass good reforms that will benefit most of the people for generations to come. There were the same reactions and vapid opposition to new progressive programs like Social Security, Medicare, consumer protection, civil rights acts, and even electrification. This new president and Congressional Dems must rise to the occasion and do what's best for the country, now and in the future.

Some Thoughts on this Off-year Election of 2009

I spent last night following the election results. The most interesting outcomes were the 23rd Congressional District in upstate New York, and the referendum in Maine about same-sex marriage. Obviously, I kept checking the numbers from New Jersey; they looked bad for Corzine the moment the polls closed. So, now the Garden State has a Republican for governor. It's been a very tough year for executives, regardless of their political stripes. The Dems had more seats to defend, therefore more to lose--and they did.

I don't think this off-year election can be used as a barometer for the 2010 midterm elections, when the whole House (435) and 1/3 of the US Senate are up for re-election. There will be more serious messages then about Obama's performance, the Dem leadership in Congress, and the shape of the Republican party.

In Washington State, the voters re-affirmed the legal protections & rights the legislature had given to same-sex couples. They don't call it "marriage" but it's close. I don't think it's far when most blue states will move more aggressively in a progressive direction, and it won't be long before we look back and wonder why the hell we didn't move faster--as we look back today and shake our heads in disbelief that states prohibited cross-racial marriages.

However, I think two results from this election have lots to tell us. First, the repealing of the same-sex marriage law in Maine by a small margin. I'm disappointed but there's good news here. The northeast is moving in a progressive direction. Almost half of those who voted are OK with giving same legal rights to homosexuals. In a few years, there will be a solid majority (at least on this progressive issue) in Maine. Students at the University of ME voted overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the same-sex law. One campus registered 81% support! As older generations expire, the country moves in a more progressive direction. And, this is the problem the Republican party is having nowadays. They're purging the moderates in their midst. When one GOP moderate (through his/her own devices) manages to win public office in the Northeast, the party claims victory. But, it's not the victory that comes out of the conservative ideology and the Republican party's platform.

The GOP seems to be trapped in the southern strategy--which worked for a generation or two, but not anymore. The Republican party is not a national party any more. A governor and a mayor here and there don't make a national party. If, for example, the blue state of NJ wanted the Republicans in charge, they would have thrown out the big Dem majority in the state legislature. They did not. In addition, those Republicans who manage to get elected in the Northeast are rather moderate. The Dem incumbent screws up (especially in a very tough economic environment of today) and the voters replace him with a moderate Republican.

The 23rd CD in NY showed us that the moderate Republicans are the most endangered species. When president Obama chose an upstate moderate Republican to be the Secretary of the Army, the NYS GOP picked another moderate Republican to run in the special election. But, wait, the conservative movement is controlled today by the most extreme, most conservative elements. Thus, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin [do I need to mention more names?] went out of their way to promote one of their own in the 23rd CD. The result was a Dem winning the district. He is the first Dem to represent the district since the 1800s!

Now, I'm not saying the Dem will hold this CD, but this race shows who's in control of the Republican party. It shows the direction is going into. I like it. They think that their ideology or policies [what policies besides "NO" have they proposed since they lost power?!!] aren't the problem. It's the party and the moderates who are responsible for the big defeats in the span of 2 elections, 2006-2008.

There are no Republicans represented in the House of Congress from the six states that comprise New England! Throw in New York state's 29 seats and you get only 2 Repubs. Actually, the Congressional Dems added 2 more seats in yesterday's special election.

On the other hand, I don't have the illusion the country is truly as progressive as some of us would prefer--even though the majority holds progressive ideas on many social issues. These days, we collectively are re-evaluating the role of the government. What is it that the government can do for us? Isn't, after all, our government? Did you see the recently released Prosperity Index? It's very interesting.

Here are the indexes:

• Economic Fundamentals – a growing, sound economy that provides opportunities for wealth creation
• Entrepreneurship and Innovation – an environment friendly to new enterprises and the commercialization of new ideas
• Democratic Institutions – transparent and accountable governing institutions that promote economic growth
• Education – an accessible, high-quality educational system that fosters human development
• Health – the physical well-being of the populace
• Safety and Security – a safe environment in which people can pursue opportunity
• Governance – an honest and effective government that preserves order and encourages productive citizenship
• Personal Freedom – the degree to which individuals can choose the course of their lives
• Social Capital – trustworthiness in relationships and strong communities.

The US ranks 9th.

Paul Krugman to the "Centrist" Dems: This is Not 1993... You're "Way out on Right Field"

Update, 6/24/09. To those members of Congress who oppose the public option: You are wealthy yet you accept the best health care (public option) funded by taxpayers. Why do you believe the rest of Americans don't deserve this choice? At the very least, you should resign from all your public-funded health care benefits until every American has access to same coverage. Yes, it is that simple!
____________

Nobel laureate Paul Krugman is the best voice for compehensive and reasoned universal health care reform. In his New York Times column he sends a message to those self-named "centrists" that they are (along with a good chunk of the Democractic party) way too conservative. It's an interesting question, why these Dems cave in when the public is so far more progressive on the issue of health care...

...The real risk is that health care reform will be undermined by “centrist” Democratic senators who either prevent the passage of a bill or insist on watering down key elements of reform. I use scare quotes around “centrist,” by the way, because if the center means the position held by most Americans, the self-proclaimed centrists are in fact way out in right field.What the balking Democrats seem most determined to do is to kill the public option, either by eliminating it or by carrying out a bait-and-switch, replacing a true public option with something meaningless. For the record, neither regional health cooperatives nor state-level public plans, both of which have been proposed as alternatives, would have the financial stability and bargaining power needed to bring down health care costs.Whatever may be motivating these Democrats, they don’t seem able to explain their reasons in public...

Krugman seems to nail the issue down. We progressives cannot afford to allow the Dem party to drift closer to the lunatic fringe. Let the Repubs stay there to represent the regressive, the small-minded, the religious fanatics, the bigots, and those who want the government to favor the small socio-economic minorities.

..The question now is whether we will nonetheless fail to get that change, because a handful of Democratic senators are still determined to party like it’s 1993.
And yes, I mean Democratic senators. The Republicans, with a few possible exceptions, have decided to do all they can to make the Obama administration a failure. Their role in the health care debate is purely that of spoilers who keep shouting the old slogans — Government-run health care! Socialism! Europe! — hoping that someone still cares.
The polls suggest that hardly anyone does. Voters, it seems, strongly favor a universal guarantee of coverage, and they mostly accept the idea that higher taxes may be needed to achieve that guarantee. What’s more, they overwhelmingly favor precisely the feature of Democratic plans that Republicans denounce most fiercely as “socialized medicine” — the creation of a public health insurance option that competes with private insurers...

What Paul is saying is that the alleged center is no such a thing. A great majority of Americans want socialized medicine. Those who don't want "some government bureaucrat deciding their treatment" should be reminded that, unless they want to spend their own money on a treatment, then it is the insurance bureaucrat that decides when and when they get treatment.

I think the labels ["socialism" etc] must be dispense with clear arguments and by the truth. It's an American value to have empathy, is it not? It's an American value to contribute into the system according to one's ability [progressive taxation is in the US constitution], and, according to the principles of the American revolution and the ones upon which our system was created: the government of, by, and for the people.

PS>Just for the record. I do have a good health care insurance right now, but I care about those who don't, and about those who are underinsured--namely, 1/3 of the country. I'm also sure that Paul Krugman isn't arguing for his own benefit either...

PS2. According to this recent Reuters' study of 100,000 US households Americans struggle to pay for their health care! We're the only advanced country where an individual or a family can go bankrupt due to medical expenses. Lack of health care leads to more deaths, shorter & more painful lives--let's not forget this. Infant mortality is high(er) too... But, abortion and even contraceptives are worse, we're told by the conservatives...

..Americans are struggling to pay for healthcare in the ongoing economic recession, with a quarter saying they have had trouble in the past 12 months, according to a survey released on Monday. ... 17.4 percent of households reported postponing or delaying healthcare over the past year ... Americans pay more per capita for healthcare than people in any other country, yet have high rates of infant mortality, diabetes, untreated heart disease and other conditions. Americans are often dissatisfied with their access to care ... 40 percent of all households planned to postpone care in the coming three months... [Reuters]

It's Time to Say "Good Riddance" to Anachronisms in our Politics

Truthiness is a Sign of Ignorance

It's extraordinary that a minority party obtains such big majorities, plus a 7 point win for the presidency, in just 2 years! Perhaps the stars were properly aligned, or there was a perfect storm, but nevertheless the Dems won big and now have a mandate--which also means a great responsibility. The other side is trying to figure our what went wrong. The initial spin is that the problem was Bush & company, and Mac-Palin. Surely these were important factors but there's lot more to it. [my latest posts focus more on this]

Two weeks later, and the election of 2008 is not over. There are 3 US Senate seats to be decided, and Missouri hasn't declared either. Obama's EV total stands at 365, with the latest addition of 1 from Nebraska! Oh, in the Senate, Lieberman must be kicked out of the important chairmanship of Security and Governmental Affairs. He's an embarrassment and a buffoon. He has not investigated the incompetence & corruption of the Bush administration and he won't do it even after Obama becomes president. We have a right to know what happened during the last 8 years, so let's get a decent fellow in instead of someone who worked against what we tried to achieve before and during this election.

Hillary Clinton is rumored to have been offered the Secretary of State job but, even though she'll be a great fit, I don't know if she'll take it.... unless, she's tired of her place in the Senate and wants a different direction now. She can easily win in New York and probably stay in the Senate for as long as she wants, but a SoS position will definitely be shorter. The Dems look good in 2 years when they'll have another good chance to top 60 seats in the US Senate--and by doing this, break a pattern that the party in the White House loses seats in midterm elections. The GOP will most likely be an obstructionist faction, as they did when Clinton came to the White House. They were rewarded in the midterm elections but I think the times are much different now.

The Republican party is going through a crisis. I do prefer a modern political party to be in opposition, but this GOP is anachronistic and not good for the country. If it self-destructs, I won't miss it. I wonder whether some (few) reasonable voices will be heard or understood. Take for example the Republican MN gov. Tim Pawlenty who said:

"We cannot be a majority governing party when we essentially cannot compete in the Northeast, we're losing our ability to compete in the Great Lakes States, we cannot compete on the West Coast, and the Democrats are winning in the Western States.".... "we cannot compete and prevail.. if we have a significant deficit, as we do, with women, where we have a large deficit with Hispanics, where we have a large deficit with African-American voters, where we have a large deficit with people of modest incomes and modest financial circumstances...."

In a way, I'd like Palin, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Liddy, Savage, Ingraham, Coulter, and all the other wingnuts to take complete control and try their version of conservatism. Actually, I would very much like to see this, because their views defy logic. It's not about a reasonable difference of opinion or priorities but a wingnuttery steeped in ignorance.

As long as their party embraces ignorance and an ideology that does not appeal to the majority of the American people, their victories will be short and regional. The Dems can mess things up thereby giving an opportunity for the GOP to come back, however--as a party that has it's power base in the religious conservatives, the racially motivated, the big business interests, anti-science, anti-environment, anti-minority, and ignorance--it will diminish in the years to come. And, may I say, good riddance to such a party!

UPDATE 11/20/08

Check this article from the Economist. The US has been changing and it seems that the Democratic party has an ideology and direction that the majority of Americans supports. Anti-intellectualism may be appealing to many Americans but their numbers are declining. Here's an excerpt from the Economist's Ship of Fools:

The Republicans lost the battle of ideas even more comprehensively than they lost the battle for educated votes, marching into the election armed with nothing more than slogans. Energy? Just drill, baby, drill. Global warming? Crack a joke about Ozone Al. Immigration? Send the bums home. Torture and Guantánamo? Wear a T-shirt saying you would rather be water-boarding. Ha ha. During the primary debates, three out of ten Republican candidates admitted that they did not believe in evolution...

The Republican Party’s divorce from the intelligentsia has been a while in the making. The born-again Mr Bush preferred listening to his “heart” rather than his “head”. He also filled the government with incompetent toadies like Michael “heck-of-a-job” Brown, who bungled the response to Hurricane Katrina. Mr McCain, once the chattering classes’ favourite Republican, refused to grapple with the intricacies of the financial meltdown, preferring instead to look for cartoonish villains. And in a desperate attempt to serve boob bait to Bubba, he appointed Sarah Palin to his ticket, a woman who took five years to get a degree in journalism, and who was apparently unaware of some of the most rudimentary facts about international politics...

Republicanism’s anti-intellectual turn is devastating for its future...

A Very Good Start for the 110th Congress, but Bush Remains as the Obstacle to Progress

The Work has just Began

Although how the women dress in the Congress got more paragraphs of coverage in the New York Times than the legislation passed, the 110th Congress had an impressive start. In its first 100 hours, the Senate passed tough ethics rules while the House rolled back $14 billion of [gasp] subsidies & tax breaks to the oil industry, increased the minimum wage, cut the interest on student loans, voted to implement recommendations of the 9-11 Commission, required the government to negotiate better prices for the Medicare beneficiaries, to finance stem cell research and try to overturn Bush's veto on ..science. Of course, the current occupant of our other House on Pennsylvania Avenue still has a lot of power and a veto on Congressional legislation, but this time it will be different. Congress has the power to investigate and exercise its important function under the checks & balances system in our constitution--something that the previous do-nothing Congress didn't want to do under the Republicans.

Hillary just announced that she's, too, forming an exploratory committee--yes, she's running! No surprises here. Governor Richardson of New Mexico is throwing his hat in as well. Of the big-name (national recognition) politicians that haven't declared, only Al Gore remains. He can wait a bit longer, but not too long--not because he'll have to raise money faster and establish a ground campaign, but because he has to get good people on his team before they commit to another candidate. Well, come to think of it, maybe it's much better for him to wait and get fresh people with fresh ideas instead of the established conventional "wisdom" and the people that have an excellent record of losing important races. This is a big topic of discussion within the progressive blogosphere these days. The Dems keep relying on the DC insiders (ie, Bob Shrum) and keep using the same old recipe of failure. OK, the party won control of Congress in the last election, but I maintain that much of it was the result of the utter incompetence and corruption of the Republicans.

It's January 20th as I'm writing this post. Do you know what date this is? Think two years ahead! That's right, a new president will be taking over at noon, and Dubya will go down in history possibly as the worst president ever! Let's try to limit the damage this man can inflict on our nation between now and then.

PS> I have to acknowledge the president's urging for medical privacy. Bush is right to propose legislation to prohibit insurance companies, employers, and others from obtaining patient's records of genetic tests and medical treatment. Now, when it comes to other matters of privacy, BushCo respects none.... All in the interest of national security, of course. Did you notice that Attornery General (the one supposedly defending our rights) Gonzales told the Senate that the Constitution doesn't explicitly provide Habeas Corpus (due process) to all?!!! [read and weep here]

PS2> If you want to get an idea how the insiders work and the damage they have inflicted on the Democratic party, it's worth reading an earlier essay I posted back in February of 2005, when Howard Dean became the chairman of the party. I urged Dean to "Fire the Losers, Get Rid of the Parasites."