Religious Right ditching the Republicans? Some prominent leaders apparently ready for something. Watch this video, it might brighten your day.


I'm starting to wonder about the Shrinking Republican party. If more moderate Republicans continue to leave the party and become Independents, who's left in the Republican Party? Fanatics, Extremists, Ideologues.. right? So that means that those are the people will be deciding who the Republican candidates are in the primary elections. Most states have closed primaries where only registered Republicans can vote in primary elections. So... following these numbers, as the Republican party shrinks, the remaining members will be fanatic Rush Limbaugh dittoheads, and other like minded far right folks, right? Seems like the Republican candidates are going to get more extreme and more partisan, and more polarizing because of the people who select them during the primary. Which ends up pushing the party further out of the mainstream, and onto the fringe. Freaky.

Schumer on the Economy...

On the other hand, I watched Lindsy Grahm (R-SC) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Meet the Press Yesterday. These two guys seem smart, and they look like they can have an open discussion and agree on some issues. It was refreshing. click on the "netcast" link to watch the whole thing.

Earmarks...

There's more transparency in the process now, you can look at every earmark and see who suggested it online. And there's about one fifth of the earmarks that there were last year. Plus, these things do create jobs in most cases, so I'm not categorically against "earmarks" so long as people are willing to put their name on them, and make it public.

Nationalize the Banks...

I guess we are waiting for the "Stress Tests" to be complete before we decide what to do with what banks. Schumer says there is no "one size fits all" solution here, and I think that's practical. Let's say CitiGroup is bankrupt, you can let them fail, but that means you'll have to pay out all the FDIC insurance on deposits up to $250,000, that's gotta be expensive. Or you can buy their bad assets, and take shareholder stake in their company, also expensive. Or Nationalization, still not completely sure what this means, something about firing the board of directors, getting rid of the shareholders, and taking the assets into a government trust untill they fix the accounting and find out how much the bank is actually worth. Then they sell it back to the private market. I'm still reading this Stiglitz article about Nationalization

Employee Free Choice Act is Awesome...
We definitely would be a stronger nation with this.

One More... The GOP strategy must be broader than this Make the Democrats less popular... How about fixing your own party sometime too.

Oh, and can I get a Hell Yea for National Healthcare?

Marshawn Lynch got caught in California with some marijuana blunts in the car. And he's one of the Buffalo Bills best players. Michael Phelps can smoke the weed and win 14 gold medals at the Olympics. They're both outstanding athletes. I bet they'll be homeless losers, in rehab, with lung cancer any day now.

Here's the news story



I'm curious to hear your opinions on this. Do you care?


I actually don't think our drug policies are very effective. I don't think the threat of prison will reduce the demand for drugs much. Especially for those under 21 who usually find it easier to get pot than alcohol. I think Treatment and honesty are a better route.

Interesting fact, we have reduced the demand for cigarettes significantly over the years without ever making them illegal.

I also find it interesting that California jails are at double capacity, how many are non-violent drug offenders? Wouldn't it be more cost effective to fund some treatment programs instead?

And what about the Drug War, how much money are we spending on that? And what has it caused? I know there is more violence in Mexico now.

I also think that the black market for drugs is one of the main reasons for violence on our streets. If somebody steals $1000 in drugs from you, you can't call the cops, you have to go vigilante style and take it into your own hands.

I also think the Only reason pot can be called a 'gateway drug' is because you get it from a drug dealer, they probably have other illegal products too. But if you got it from a gas station or a head shop you wouldn't have any access to the harder drugs.

Some people make their money with casinos, or strip clubs, or selling cigarettes, or porn, I'd be embarrassed if that was my profession, but what's so different about a store that sells weed?

I wonder if we'll have to rethink our policies because of the budget problems.

I pride myself on being able to see things from another person's point of view. Understanding Republicans or Libertarians, or WTO protesters, or Jehovah Witnesses, or other countries, or people who resort to violence, at one point I even tried to understand Limbaugh's perspective...

I feel that most people are rational. If people are honest with you, you can usually understand their perspective when you look at their life experience and values. And you can have a rational discussion.

Right now I don't understand the Republicans, and it's kind of bothering me.

Last week, they actually called for a spending freeze. They wanted the federal government to call some kind of time-out and not spend any money until October.

Honestly, if we followed that idea it would be an instant death blow to our economy. All the employees that would be laid off from state local and federal jobs? Probably around a million, at least. All the construction projects around the country that would come to a halt. Government programs like medicare that would dry up and leave us without a safety net. It really would be like the Great Depression all over again. No safety net, no jobs, no money, tent cities, food riots, the whole miserable package.

And this wasn't some talking point floating around on cable news, they introduced a Bill in the House of Representatives and voted on the crazy thing. AND every Republican voted FOR it, along with 8 Democrats in the house. I'm serious.

Can you find a single economist who thinks that is a good idea? Even at the Heritage Foundation or PNAC? It's completely Insane.

Some Republicans do not agree with this kind of... policy?

David Brooks calls it "Insane" David Frum, says the party should fight for independent voters minorities and women, instead of worrying about Rush Limbaugh and his audience of True Believers.

These Republicans make more sense to me, I can follow their train of thought, even if I don't agree. They are not liberal, they're definitely 'invisible hand of the market' types, but I just think they're critical thinkers, they're logical, so I can understand them.

Sometimes You gotta Change Your Mind

You have to govern based on the facts you have available, and the situation that's in front of you. I think some Party Loyalists are just married to their talking points, they've worked so hard over the years to burn their slogans into our brains. "Big government = Bad" "Tax Cuts = Good" "Big Business = Efficient" "Government = Wasteful"

Those slogans are Old, they originated based on circumstances that no longer exist. You Must adjust to the facts, and address the current situations.

You know Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican. If he ran today, he'd have Grover Norquist and Karl Rove chasing him out of the country and calling him an anti-American Socialist, who would bring an end to America as we know it.

That reminds me, knock it off with the Socialism please. We were not socialist under Clinton, and we are not a 4.6% tax increase away from becoming Cuba. Ditch the slogans and talking points, get your heads out of the box, and look at the information that's in front of you.

Maybe...

Maybe Nationalizing the Banks is smarter than letting them fail and cheaper than pumping out a few trillion to resurrect them.

Maybe GM wouldn't need a bailout, and neither would anyone else if we abandoned the Employer Based Healthcare system that is bankrupting our companies.

Maybe "Free Trade" never really benefited America, and we should try manufacturing things in our own country again.

Maybe lowering taxes on the rich doesn't create the most jobs. And maybe some government programs are actually useful and should be expanded.

Maybe, just maybe, sometimes you have to try something else. because the facts and the circumstances have changed.

"Ronald Reagan was a great leader and a great president because he addressed the problems of his time. But we have very different problems-and we need very different answers...." We need real solutions.

Hey everyone, my mind has been racing about so many things, I haven't been writing because there's just too much stuff, it would take hours. Business has been picking up for me, that's good, but it means I've been short on hours lately.



Here's some new links:
Physicians for a National Healthcare Plan .
Businesses are getting behind it too.
National Coalition on Healthcare
New America Foundation
Center For American Progress

Healthcare....

This is so important to me. I'm tired of superficial debate on this life and death problem.

This is a big issue, I don't know where to begin.

Health Insurance Companies are the problem. It's just a sick and twisted way to make money.

What do Health Insurance companies do? They take your money, and they repay you by trying as hard as possible to deny you treatment. Even if you have Health Insurance they're not going to cover everything you need. Got examples anyone? I think we all do.

They NEVER SEE THE PATIENT. but they know what you need? Sure. all they care about is profit, I doubt they care if you die, except that it cuts off the money you payed them when you were living.

What a waste of money. We spend more per person than any other nation on earth, and we have little to show for it. You know why? because it goes to pay assholes with telephones an computers who try as hard as they can to make excuses for refusing to pay for treatment. I like statistics, One third of our healthcare costs goes to this waste

The most amazing argument I hear against universal healthcare is that "patients don't want a government bureaucrat standing between them and their doctor telling them what to do" oh yea? how bout a for profit insurance company bureaucrat in the private sector who's trying to milk you for every dime? We have hardly any choice about our private insurance anymore, it's more like gambling than trying to find a good product. I'd prefer the government, if only for the fact that I get to elect those assholes, and there's a chance they will actually care what I want. Freedom of choice is a joke. A simpler system would save us all a lot of money overall, and give us more choice about the things that matter.

What choices do you want as a patient? Probably all you want, is to choose your doctor, consent to your own treatments, and get professional medical advice when you need it. Insurance companies do none of these things, they just interfere and make life difficult for both doctors and patients.

Sorry Blue Cross Blue Shield, you serve no good purpose. I want single payer national care.

Does anyone really think that health insurance middlemen make our system better? They don't keep costs down, they push them up by their very existence.

I think doctors and scientists are some of the hardest working, most motivated people you will ever meet, and they are the ones closest to the patients, that care honestly about your well being. Is there a doctor out there that thinks health insurance companies are useful? I really doubt it.

I want some kind of "socialized" medicine, I don't know what people are afraid of. We need a simpler more efficient system like Single Payer National Healthcare. It's really in our self interest as individuals and as a nation.

The employer based system is dead. The reason is simple, it's because our companies are no longer the most powerful and profitable in the world. The system started around the time of unions and WWII. Companies realized it would be cheaper to give health benefits than to increase wages so workers could pay healthcare costs themselves. So we pawned off the cost on them for decades. Now, money is tight for most businesses, and international companies are competitive with US companies, the employer based system will not work, get rid of it.


The cost of providing benefits is killing our companies (GM?). The best thing we could do for our economy is take this burden off their backs, the government could provide it far cheaper than our current patchwork system ever could. It's a simple equation, if you insure the biggest pool of people you save money because the risk and the cost are distributed widely. Plus all the paperwork you save by having a sensible system, without all the middlemen trying to make a profit.

Some things the government just does better. Healthcare is one of them. Because they could simply cover everyone.


If you are reading this,
then I know you care, Call your congress people and state reps. You can find out who they are and get their contact info by looking under my 'FavLinks' on the right.

Physicians for a National Health System
Check them out for great info.

PS is any of this controversial? besides the profanity, it seems like common sense. I don't understand how politicians could oppose such a thing.

It's obvious at this point, the Republican Party is in permanent campaign mode, still. Their primary concern is regaining power and making the Democrats look bad. They are most concerned about elections, about their own political future, not about doing what they honestly think is best for the country.

Case in Point, Arlen Specter, Republican Senator who listened to his conscience and actually voted for the bill. Arlen believes that some of his Republican colleges are glad the bill passed "without their fingerprints on it". From an interview after the vote, "My Republican colleague said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' I said, 'Are you going to vote with me?' And he said, 'No, I might have a primary....'" (translation, he might offend the Limbaugh's of the world, and they'll try to smear him in the Primary election) you can listen to the actual audio there too. (Another Example: Dancing about obstruction. ) there's plenty of examples.


I think we can take it as a fact, the top concern of at least SOME Republicans is reelection, and their internal calculations told them voting against the bill would work out better for them. (others may just have nonsensical thought patterns :) which allowed them to believe their convoluted arguments against it, like spending doesn't stimulate the economy, and the New Deal didn't work. Sorry, but you have to wonder) anyway

If your top concern is reelection, or the survival of your party... Governing, and serving your constituents, becomes your second priority, along with everything else.

How can Obama beat the math and bring the change to Washington that he promised?

First you get the public on your side, then the politicians follow. Work from the bottom up, outside of Washington. If Congress is worried about reelection, go straight to the people who elect them.

I think Obama's press conference, and his town hall meetings were very effective. And the underlying reason is that he looks like he is fighting for the public, meanwhile congress looked like it was fighting amongst itself.

The reason for Obama's 70%-80% approval rating is his working class hero image, and his promise to bring the public into the government.

Obama left Washington, and met with people at his town hall events. He heard our concerns, and he basically promised solutions. Manwhile back in Washington, the Democrats followed his lead, to make sure those promises were kept.

I watched Obama on TV, and I called my Congressman. I wanted more School funding and state aid, but with a pre-condition of strict oversight, because I know state governments are corrupt too. I wanted the housing tax credit provision eliminated, or focused on less expensive homes so it would be useful to my neighbors who don't make $150,000 per year, and whose homes sell for $70,000. Not sure if my voice mad it to negations (Higgins was there) but my concerns were addressed.

The point is, People hear Obama speak, and they agree, then they call their congressman. That's how you get the job done. Bring the heat from the street.

The Irony, Obama is kind of a Washington outsider with a bold list of changes. As president, he is the leader in Washington. But Washington has stubborn traditions, that don't die easily. He seems to do well when he's fighting from the outside.

Symptom: Ideological Blockage
Solution: Leave Washington