The New Definition of Treason

It's time to start calling it what it is.  It's not extortion, blackmail, an attempt to force negotiations, or a power grab.  It's an attempt to subvert the constitution, a coup, it's treason.

Yes, the Repugs are at it again.  There's a way to get rid of a law that 's not to one's  liking.  It's called repeal.  But what to do when that's not possible.  Why, subvert the constitution. Shut down the government, destroy the credit of the United States.  When small, far right (Or left.) parties try something like that in a third world country, we sniff, hold our noses and call it treason.  For the life of me, I can't understand why Ted Cruz and his followers aren't guilty of the same crime.

Of course, the Repugs have been pulling this stuff for awhile now.  Let's see, there's that whole voter suppression thing.  Five conservative thugs on the Supreme Court overturning an election.  And let's not forget the impeachment of Bill Clinton over a sexual indiscretion.  Bad taste, for sure, but a basis for removing a President from office?  I think not.

There's an important constitutional issue here.  If the Repugs can threaten the destruction of the country, if they don't get their way, then the country ceases to exist.  I hope President Obama fights this one to the end. Let's also hope that the Republicans are going the way of the Whigs.

Post Debate Blues

This should be the fun blog for me.  I've always been political, and opinionated, to my detriment.  I get to be cynical, sarcastic or sincere as the mood dictates, and done anonymously, with out reproach.  Not a benefit I've had in the real world.   Sadly, my life has been dominated by personal problems of the financial kind, and I spend more time thinking about money than I do about politics, or any of the other things that interest me.

Alrighty then.....debates are a terrible way to pick a President.  Don't get me wrong.  I may have been way too young to vote against Richard Nixon in 1960, and I'm glad he lost (If only he would have lost eight years latter.) but really.  Disqualified because of a sweaty upper lip.  All because he was too vain to wear makeup.  And the whole "There you go again." line.  Clever theater, but not a reason to elect the fount of all of our current troubles.

I think I know why Barack Obama did so poorly in the first debate.  I don't think he was prepared to argue with a ten year old.  Walk in to any room with a ten year old and a broken lamp for an example.  The lamp is broken, in pieces on the floor, and the kid will tell you he didn't do it.  Point out the obvious, that as the only person in the room when the lamp was broken,  he has to be responsible, and it will be something like this.  "I didn't throw my football across the room."  Doesn't have anything to do with the smashed lamp, but he will stick with it.  Point out to Romney that cutting taxes on the wealthy, making the Bush tax cuts permanent, and increasing defense spending will not lead to a balanced budget, and he just denied he ever said that.  Oh no, closed loop holes, the rich will still pay the same, strong military can be paid for with cutting other things.  Nonsense, but if it's said enough it must be true.  Poor Barack, he brought facts to a fantasy fest.

The second debate was better.  It helped that the aging Jim Lehrer was replaced by a moderator this side of ninety.   Candy Crowley was still walked on, but at least she was able to impose the slightest bit of order.  Mitt Romney, AKA the Lyin' King, continued to say what ever came to mind with no regard for any past statements.  That brings us to the big question.   Does Mittens have an ideological bone in his body?  I think so.  I think he has the ideology of the marketeer.  If one line doesn't work, move on to something else.  The customer forgets.  Of course the moneyed interests don't forget, so keep that in mind.  Just don't say it too loud.  Or say it behind closed doors you 47% you.  Still, it was nice to see Obama engaged and willing to fight back.  I know both guys, at one time or another, talked over the other one, but really.  Must Romney keep saying, "I'm talking know."  If he's going to stand up to Russia, China, Iran, and all of his other enemies, both imagined and real....Well, I doubt Putin will shut up when told.  Is it just me or have others noted a tendency of Mittens to chant when painted into a corner?  "Government does not create jobs. Government does not create jobs. Government does not create jobs."  I thought I was at a social Darwinist ashram.

I was just checking out some of the instant polling for the final Pres. debate, and I was surprised to see a clear win for Obama.  Now, I thought Obama won too, but I'm very partisan.  Looking at things objectively, Mitt didn't do all that bad.  How could he.  He endorsed the Obama foreign policy.  Of course, he then went on to decry a lack of leadership, even though he agreed with almost everything that O has done.  And then we got back to the mythical apology tour.  Once again, the Repugs embrace the idea that people will believe anything that's repeated enough.  Sadly, many do.  Bit those people were probably voting Repug anyway.  At least O got the chance to look the Lyin' King in the eye and, politely, call him a liar.  And the best line of all three debates, the one about not having as many horses and bayonets as we used to.  Romney keeps making this point about how we don't have as many ships as we did before World War 1.  The President pointed out the obvious.  One aircraft carrier, one nuclear submarine, is worth whole navies from 1916.  So what does the instant polling signify?  Perhaps the American people are seeing the empty suit, and wondering why they should vote for a guy who doesn't believe in anything beyond making money.

Oh, and least we forget, Joe Biden mopped the floor with Paul Ryan-Rand.  AKA, Kid Fraudster.

Outrage In Chains

The Repugs are outraged at recent comments by Vice President Joe Biden.  Poor Joe.  He does have a habit of stirring the Republican bouillabaisse.  How dare he suggest that Romney/Ryan/Rand would push an economic agenda that might, just might, further hamper the long term prospects of the middle class all so the very wealthy can have a few more tax breaks.  And a slavery analogy to boot.  Bad Joe, Bad!

Just for the hell of it, let's turn back the clock a bit.  When Bill Clinton was prez, the elephants said he was a cocaine dealer, that he killed Vince Foster, perpetrated a real estate fraud, and while the whole impeachment was technically about lying under oath, let's be honest, it was pretty much an excuse to talk about his sex life.  Clinton remained above the fray.  

Al Gore runs for the top spot, and the Repugs make him out as a pathological liar incapable of telling the truth.  If Gore had said it was sunny at noon, the Rove squad would have claimed an eclipse had blocked out the sun.  Gore took the high ground and didn't fight back.

John Kerry, a decorated war hero was portrayed as a coward who had falsified his military records.  The senator responded with reason and facts.

Barack Obama runs and....let's recount the lies.  He was born In Kenya.  He is a secret Muslim.  He is a socialist.  He wants to impose sharia law on America.  He wants to take  guns away so that the United Nations can take over the country.  That he went on an apology tour,  and blamed the United States for all the ills of the world.  That he wants to drive the cost of energy up to the point that the national economy will fail.  And it goes on and on.

But the pattern seems to be changing.  President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and V.P. Biden are fighting back.  Of course the Repugs are outraged.  Democrats are supposed to be reasoned and too pure for the hard fight of modern politics.   Mittens might actually have to defend himself against Democratic counter attacks. How unexpected.  Democrats willing to meet Republican smears with something other than polite rejoinders.  And by the way, co-nominee Ayn Rand was not born in the United States.  Bad Democrats. Bad!

The Hail Mary

I'm assuming that the Paul Ryan rumors are not some ill conceived feint on the part of Mitt Romney.  I'm assuming that when I wake up tomorrow, the Wisconsin representative will have been named to the Republican ticket as Mitt Romney's running mate.

A long time ago a vice presidential pick was about balance.  If the top of the ticket was from New England, it was a pretty sure bet that the Presidential nominee would be an unknown quantity in California.  Therefore it made sense to put a westerner in the second slot.  And then along came television.  In our age, the Presidential nominee goes on the talk show circuit, buys ad time, and in the end, not only do we know him, we're sick of the guy.

Now, the choice of a veep is seen as a candidate's first important decision.  John McCain chose Sarah Palin and was viewed as foolish and unreliable for a pick that was so obviously out of her league, and with out the intelligence to grow into the position.

So what does Mitt's choice of Paul Ryan say about him?  What Romney has done is change the whole dynamic of the race.  Starting tomorrow this race will be about the Ryan plan, the cutting of government, getting rid of Medicare as we know it, and eliminating as much of the social safety net as possible.  Mitt Romney has marginalized himself.  He might as well step aside and put Ryan in the top spot on the Republican ticket because know it's about Barack Obama's vision versus Paul Ryan's vision.  Mitt is like the last guy chosen in the NFL draft; Mr. Irrelevant.

A Quick Note on Blogger Ads

Like a lot of people, I'm trying everything I can to make a little, much needed, extra money.  One of the ways I do that is by  allowing ads on my various blogs.  The way it works, Bloggger does data mining, picking out key words, and placing an advertisement that seems to go with an individual blog.  Because I write about how bad Mitt Romney and conservatives are, ads for Willard and conservative causes have a tendency to end up on The New Common Sense.  Let me make this crystal clear.  I DO NOT IN ANY WAY SUPPORT MITTENS OR ANY OTHER CONSERVATIVE CAUSE.   THE REPUGS WILL BE THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR NATION!  VOTE OBAMA, VOTE DEMOCRATIC, VOTE LIBERAL!

Occupy Los Angeles

It's a little past one in the morning, I'm tired, and I'm getting ready to go to bed. I've been up watching the news coverage of the LAPD removing the occupy Los Angeles protesters from city hall, and so far, all is peaceful. I don't know what I expected, but I' am pleased that both sides have remained non violent. Unlike Oakland and to a lesser extent New York City, the police in Los Angeles have used a minimalist approach to things. Move a few feet, ask people to leave, and when arrests have been made, it's been done gently. Far better than the reclaiming territory emphasis of other cities.
-
While I support the occupy movement, I've also become concerned that the protesters have become addicted to the political theater of the actual occupations. In the long run, it's only through political action, and in the United States that means registering to vote and elections, that real progress can be made in turning back the tide of right wing success. And that is an illustration of the strength of the right wing in America.
-
Conservatives didn't just arrive, and over night, replace the age of Roosevelt with the age of Ronald Reagan. They made incremental progress, year after year, moving the center further and further to the right fringes of politics. Those of us on the left came out, voted and elected Barack Obama, an early step in reclaiming the country from the clutches of the Allen Greenspans of the world. And when a liberal House of Representatives sent progressive legislation to the Senate, it died there. President Obama negotiated, made deals and saved a lot, but no where near enough, of that legislation. Our reaction to that should have been to elect even more liberals to congress and move the center back to where it was during the Great Society days of the Johnson administration. But instead, too many of us stayed away from the polls. I don't know whether that was the reaction of spoiled children, crying that we didn't get our way, right now, or whether we were just too preoccupied with other things to care. In any case, we gave congress to the Tea Party, and set the liberal movement back a few years. The Occupy Movement is a beginning. I just hope it doesn't become a dead end.

A Few Thoughts About Osama bin Laden

I'm glad Osama bin Laden lived long enough to witness the Arab spring. Tunisia, Libya, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Yemen. The crowds clogging the streets, fighting against their governments, aren't begging for some medieval version of Islam or a theocratic dictatorship, but all the things that bin Laden professed to hate. The Arab street may not be aware of it, but they've turned to Thomas Jefferson as roll model, not bin Laden. They may not succeed in creating democratic regimes in all, or for that matter any, of the listed nations, but they're willing to put their lives on the line for a freedom that bin Laden had hoped to snuff out. Osama bin Laden became irrelevant to history. Just another cheap killer.

Obama 1, Osama 0. I've noticed that all but a handful of Republicans are trying to credit our George with killing bin Laden. Just a reminder to Repugs everywhere, Bush shut down the Osama bin Laden task force at CIA. It was Obama, belittled as the candidate not able to handle the phone call at 3 A.M., who made the decision to once again make bin Laden a major priority, and who made the call to send in Navy SEALS rather than making the far easier call of a missile strike. Had things gone wrong, president Obama would have been held responsible in the same way that Jimmy Carter was held responsible for the failed rescue attempt during the Iran hostage crises. The president deserves credit for things going right.

I'm not sure that the elected government of Pakistan was shielding Osama bin Laden, but I'd bet that the Pakistani intelligence people were.

I'm opposed to the death penalty, but I don't have any problem with the order to take Osama out. Sure, if he threw up his arms and begged to be taken alive, we should have done so, but why increase risk to American lives to keep the man alive.

Have all the Islam haters, like Terry Jones and his crew, noticed that not just American Muslims, but Muslims the world over are happy that Osama bin Laden is dead. On the news I saw the head of The Muslim Brotherhood saying what a good thing bin Laden's death was. Stanley "Tookie" Williams founded the Crips street gang. Arrested and sentenced to death for murder, after entering prison he had a change of heart and developed anti-gang programs for young people. When his last appeal was denied, local law enforcement and news commentators warned that there would be riots on the streets of Los Angeles if the governor didn't commute his sentence. I asked a black co-worker if she was worried about violence. "Are you kidding me?, she replied. "That man founded the Crips. He killed more black people than the Klan. The people I know are going to celebrate." There might be a few marginalized Islamic radicals who try to retaliate, but I am not worried. Osama bin Laden is dead, and I don't care.

Home and Revolution

Are political revolutions accompanied by social revolutions?
-
All of the political commentary seems to posit that sooner or latter the American people will, once again, have confidence, and will start to spend money. The left/right split seems to be whether that confidence will return from the economic top, or from the middle class and bottom.
-
I ride my bikes all over southern California, and as I move from one block to another, I'm reminded of what pre-Reagan America was like. I'm old enough to remember when people bought houses as homes, and not as investments. I'll roll by block after block of what, 30 years ago, were considered large family homes. And then, sometimes in a new development, or a newer house sited among homes from the fifties, sixties or seventies, a McMansion; a house two or three times larger than it's neighbors. Families didn't get bigger. The lust for square footage did.
-
The political revolution of the Reagan era was accompanied by a social revolution that was fascinated by ostentatious wealth. Bigger, for the sake of bigger, more for the sake of more. But what if the social revolution of the Obama era is a rejection of excess? We've built an economy that survives through mass consumption. What if the American people now want smaller, more manageable homes? Smaller, more fuel efficient cars? What if the idea of a big screen TV in every room of the house begins to seem silly? If our economy needs excessive consumption to right itself, we might be in big trouble.

Little Meg

So there I was. Sitting in front of the television watching a Q&A with Republican pornographer, Little Meg Whitman. She was asked what she thought of the job that President Obama was doing on the economy. "Well not so good. I mean that colored boy means well, for a Muslim who wants to abort conservative babies and turn America into a socialist state and take all the money away from rich people who should be running things because God blesses them with money and if God didn't want us to be in charge he wouldn't have allowed us to get rich by dealing with his agents on earth, Goldman Sachs..." OK, so I paraphrased a bit. Well, actually a lot.
-
The fact is I'm not afraid of Little Meg, the virgin Sara, or Mittens Romney. What does scare me is all of the Democrats who make criticisms that are equally silly. Barack Obama inherited the worst financial crisis since the great depression, two unfunded, and stupid wars, and most telling of all, a political center that had been moved so far to the right that it may take decades to get back to Eisenhower's America. And that ain't all that liberal, folks.
-
So, why do so many people on the left constantly harp on what they perceive to be Obama's failure? If he went before Congress and asked for single payer health care he wouldn't get it. But, he can move the discussion to the left, and with hard work and support, he can get us a lot closer. How about an immediate switch over to complete green, and renewable energy? Again, without across the board support from Congress, it won't happen now, even if it were possible, but we can move in that direction.
-
I've always hated the way the Repugs characterize those of us on the left, but I've got to admit they may get one thing right; We love to be victims. While Little Meg and her sad, stupid cohorts take the long view to power, too many of those on the left would rather be noble losers, than think about how we can build the foundation for a liberal future. It's so much easier to say, "Don't blame us, Obama wasn't the man we thought he was," than it is to do what's necessary to build the coalitions, make the deals, and inch along to a better country and world. I've noted before that the much hated LBJ got more civil rights legislation, and if it hadn't been for Vietnam, might have gotten us to the great society that most of us on the left would love to live in. He did it by moving the center to the left, one inch at a time. Alas, I fear that many on the left will sit out the next couple of elections because they are sooo disappointed in Barack Obama that they'd like a President Palin since it will feel sooo good to complain about how evil she is. And just to get used to the idea, we can turn over Congress to the Repugs in November.

The Peace Prize

When I first heard that Barack Obama had one the Nobel Peace Prize it thought it was silly for the same reason that I think a lot of the criticism he gets from the left is silly: The man has only been in office for nine months. I agreed that he was awarded the prize as much for not being our George, as anything else.
-
But I've had a couple of days to think about it, and while I still think it's an anti George thing, I don't think it's quite so silly anymore. The real test is just how bad our George made things, and that turning things around, if not 180 degrees, at least 140 or 150 degrees, is a real move towards world peace.
-
The neo-cons that our George listened to wanted to create a world in which the United States was so dominant that we could dictate to the world on any and all issues; a world where we were so feared that no one would have the nerve to say anything but "Yes sir, what ever you wish sir, please don't hit me sir." Well guess what, the neo-con philosophy became one of the greatest threats to world peace, on the globe. No, I'm not doing what so many of my fellow liberals do, and immediately point out to anyone in ear shot that no matter what's out there we Americans are far, far worse. Only an idiot would look at the world today and try and draw an equivalency between some of the real horrors of the third world, and the United States. No matter how stupid some of our governments decisions are, there not as bad as most of the things that are done in Burma, as an example.
-
So no, I no longer think that Barack Obama's peace prize is silly. The United States is no longer wandering the world making threats to any and all who don't toe the neo-can line. He's reached out to our traditional allies, removed missile systems from the Russian border, and spoken directly to the world's Muslims. It may not be much yet, but it's a start, and the world is a much safer place today than it was a year ago.

Obama's History Lesson

As majority leader in the United States Senate, Lyndon Johnson was very successful in passing civil rights legislation. This was during the fifties, when Jim Crow laws still dominated the south, and restrictive real estate covenants were the norm in most American cities. Pressured from the left for more action, and obstructed by the racist right, Johnson concentrated on moving the middle. He would go to southern senators and tell them that sooner or latter civil rights laws would pass, and if they wanted to slow things down, they should agree to something. He would then go to liberals on race and tell them that he couldn't get the south to agree to massive reforms, so they should settle for what was possible. And then, after the center had been moved to the left, he would go back and start all over again. In time, little by little he changed things, radically.

I thought of this today, while watching Rachel Maddow on the Charlie Rose Show. They were talking about how disappointed the left was with the Presidency of Barack Obama. Like it or not, President Obama probably can't get most of what the left wants through congress. He can't get single payer, the repeal of the defense of marriage act, the closing of many over-seas American military bases, and far reaching restrictions of green house gases. What he can do is move the center to the left. I may be wrong, but I think that's what he is doing.

It has been my fear that Obama's greatest hurdle is not the right, but liberals who want everything right now, and if they don't get it, they'll stage some sort of revolt. My advice is patience. If Obama is indeed trying to move the center far enough to the left that major change doesn't seem so scary to congress, he needs the support of the liberal left, rather than criticism. And if it's not Obama's strategy, we'll know within a year or two, and then criticism can begin.