I read a great article in the newspaper this morning about how our present political environment is more about rewarding mediocrity than it is recognizing excellence. This is something that I have been saying for years now when I have private arguments with friends and family members, but this year we need to seriously take notice of the fact that we are no longer looking for candidates with a relevant resume and professional pedigrees. Instead, we are looking for a reality television star.
Every day the media relies more heavily on ginning up controversy than it does reporting the facts. They refuse to do their job.
For the new conservative movement it is more important that candidates fit into their well-defined boxes than instill a willingness to debate and cooperation. Sure, bipartisanship might have been hard to find over the past two years, but if the GOP takes control, you might as well get used to a state of gridlock unlike anything we've ever seen.
Over the past few years the GOP has been called "The Party of No" as if this was some new revelation. The Republican Party has always been "The Party of No." I challenge you to name one major piece of legislation that was passed by the GOP in the past 70 years. MAJOR LEGISLATION?
Social Security? Democrats
Medicare? Democrats
Medicaid? Democrats
Civil Rights Act? Democrats
Health Reform? Democrats
Fair Labor Standards? Democrats
Minimum Wage? Democrats
Equal Pay Act? Democrats
Food Stamps and Student Lunch Program? Democrats
Equal Employment Opportunity? Democrats
The GOP has always been about limiting government from doing ANYTHING to make peoples lives better. Why should we be surprised that their new electoral strategy is nominating extremely unqualified candidates to go to Congress and do nothing? You don't need to be qualified if you aren't going to pass any meaningful legislation. You just have to be there to vote "no."
Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Rand Paul, Christine O'Donnell, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck... these are the country's new conservative voices? Seriously?
Think of it this way, the moment you hear a complaint that the President of the United States is, and I quote, "too intellectual," you know we have come to a dangerous national mindset.
-- Joseph Banks
Monday, October 25, 2010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
The Chamber of Commerce "Dust Up"
While I'm aware that watching the results on Nov. 2 will be a struggle I have found quite a bit of joy this past week watching the Democrats accuse the Chamber of Commerce of taking foreign money, not disclosing their donors, and being an all around nefarious politically motivated group.
Why?
Well, finally the Democrats are taking a page from the Republican play book and it is pissing them off. Remember when the GOP spent the past few years demonizing ACORN and MoveOn, building up fear with the talk of death panels and czars, and creating doubts about the President's qualifications?
Yeah, me too. Remember how they had ZERO factual evidence to make those claims? Here's how those conversations went...
GOP: ACORN is stealing elections from the American people!
REPORTER: Really? How?
GOP: By doing it.
REPORTER: Oh... do you have proof?
GOP: None at all.
REPORTER: Okay. I'm going to report this on the evening news as fact.
GOP: Sounds good.
Well, finally, FINALLY, the Dems are fighting a little bit dirty, and while I don't condone it, that won't stop me from enjoying the spectacle.
Karl Rove spent the past four days offended, OFFENDED, that the President would even dare to make such an accusation! Such crocodile tears!
Is there any evidence that the Chamber uses foreign money to fund GOP candidates? Nothing yet. But, because they don't disclose their donor base than the Democrats can create this boogeyman. And for all of the political "experts" out there who claim it won't have any effect, clearly they haven't been AWAKE the past few years as every internet conspiracy has shown up to some degree in our political institution. News outlets have been spending HOURS talking about this over the past week so it has clearly resonated as a story.
So, for the first time in a long time, Democrats are the ones just making shit up. It's about time.
-- Joseph Banks
Why?
Well, finally the Democrats are taking a page from the Republican play book and it is pissing them off. Remember when the GOP spent the past few years demonizing ACORN and MoveOn, building up fear with the talk of death panels and czars, and creating doubts about the President's qualifications?
Yeah, me too. Remember how they had ZERO factual evidence to make those claims? Here's how those conversations went...
GOP: ACORN is stealing elections from the American people!
REPORTER: Really? How?
GOP: By doing it.
REPORTER: Oh... do you have proof?
GOP: None at all.
REPORTER: Okay. I'm going to report this on the evening news as fact.
GOP: Sounds good.
Well, finally, FINALLY, the Dems are fighting a little bit dirty, and while I don't condone it, that won't stop me from enjoying the spectacle.
Karl Rove spent the past four days offended, OFFENDED, that the President would even dare to make such an accusation! Such crocodile tears!
Is there any evidence that the Chamber uses foreign money to fund GOP candidates? Nothing yet. But, because they don't disclose their donor base than the Democrats can create this boogeyman. And for all of the political "experts" out there who claim it won't have any effect, clearly they haven't been AWAKE the past few years as every internet conspiracy has shown up to some degree in our political institution. News outlets have been spending HOURS talking about this over the past week so it has clearly resonated as a story.
So, for the first time in a long time, Democrats are the ones just making shit up. It's about time.
-- Joseph Banks
Monday, October 4, 2010
Joe Miller sees the world in black and white
It must be nice not to see a gray area. Issues that Senators are supposed to take a stand on are now much easier to understand! Right? For instance, it's easier to say abortion is wrong. Period. End of story.
But what about-
Nope, it's wrong. Next question.
Do you think gays should have the right-
Gay marriage is wrong. End of story.
But what about-
Bup bup bup, wrong. Moving on-
Do you think semi-automatic weapons is-
We all have the right to bear arms.
Well, sure, but I'm talking about-
Next question!
See how easy it is to appear as a leader with confidence when you don't have to analyze the pros and cons to an argument? In some ways, I envy Joe Miller. It must be so much easier going through life KNOWING that he is right and no argument can persuade him otherwise. For instance, in a report today he was asked if there should be a minimum wage...
"There should not be. That is not within the scope of the powers that are given to the federal government."
Uhh, well, yeah. That's kind of correct.
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 created a federal minimum wage as well as set child labor laws. So, since the New Deal we've had a minimum wage which means your employer is legally obligated to pay you a certain wage.
So, here's my beef with Joe Miller and every other "constitutional conservative" who claim that the Constitution is a flawless document and if we just follow it to the letter everything will work out fine...
It's NOT! Look, I love the Constitution as much as the next guy, but it's a living document. It must evolve as our country evolves. That's why our legal system was created in such a way that the Constitution could be altered and to claim that as Senator his legislative strategy would be to rely on whatever the Constitution says is a terrifying simple outlook of what a Senator's job entails.
Since 1776 we have made some of the following changes to the Constitution:
The 15th Amendment gave blacks the right to vote. (1870)
The 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote. (1920)
The 22nd Amendment set term limits to the Presidency. (1951)
The 26th Amendment lowered the voting age. (1971)
We've amended the Constitution over and over again over the course of our history. The Fair Labor Standards of Act is NOT an amendment, so Mr. Miller has a point. It's not a constitutional right, but that doesn't mean it's not a law. It also doesn't mean it shouldn't even be debated. How many politicians in 1870 tried to say that giving blacks the right to vote was unconstitutional? Plenty. It doesn't mean it wasn't debated. So, to see the world in such black and white terms is true folly.
Our founders wrote the document in the late 1700s. It's currently 2010. The world isn't the same anymore and to use the phrase "it's unconstitutional" is practically akin to saying "I have no argument."
But what about-
Nope, it's wrong. Next question.
Do you think gays should have the right-
Gay marriage is wrong. End of story.
But what about-
Bup bup bup, wrong. Moving on-
Do you think semi-automatic weapons is-
We all have the right to bear arms.
Well, sure, but I'm talking about-
Next question!
See how easy it is to appear as a leader with confidence when you don't have to analyze the pros and cons to an argument? In some ways, I envy Joe Miller. It must be so much easier going through life KNOWING that he is right and no argument can persuade him otherwise. For instance, in a report today he was asked if there should be a minimum wage...
"There should not be. That is not within the scope of the powers that are given to the federal government."
Uhh, well, yeah. That's kind of correct.
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 created a federal minimum wage as well as set child labor laws. So, since the New Deal we've had a minimum wage which means your employer is legally obligated to pay you a certain wage.
So, here's my beef with Joe Miller and every other "constitutional conservative" who claim that the Constitution is a flawless document and if we just follow it to the letter everything will work out fine...
It's NOT! Look, I love the Constitution as much as the next guy, but it's a living document. It must evolve as our country evolves. That's why our legal system was created in such a way that the Constitution could be altered and to claim that as Senator his legislative strategy would be to rely on whatever the Constitution says is a terrifying simple outlook of what a Senator's job entails.
Since 1776 we have made some of the following changes to the Constitution:
The 15th Amendment gave blacks the right to vote. (1870)
The 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote. (1920)
The 22nd Amendment set term limits to the Presidency. (1951)
The 26th Amendment lowered the voting age. (1971)
We've amended the Constitution over and over again over the course of our history. The Fair Labor Standards of Act is NOT an amendment, so Mr. Miller has a point. It's not a constitutional right, but that doesn't mean it's not a law. It also doesn't mean it shouldn't even be debated. How many politicians in 1870 tried to say that giving blacks the right to vote was unconstitutional? Plenty. It doesn't mean it wasn't debated. So, to see the world in such black and white terms is true folly.
Our founders wrote the document in the late 1700s. It's currently 2010. The world isn't the same anymore and to use the phrase "it's unconstitutional" is practically akin to saying "I have no argument."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)