Congress does not exist to serve special interests

..................................................................................................................................
I must say that I don't believe in many of the same things that Ron Paul does, but he makes some good points in this piece.
..................................................................................................................................
New Year’s Resolutions for Congress
By Ron Paul, December 31, 2012

As I prepare to retire from Congress, I’d like to suggest a few New Year’s resolutions for my colleagues to consider.  For the sake of liberty, peace, and prosperity I certainly hope more members of Congress consider the strict libertarian constitutional approach to government in 2013.

In just a few days, Congress will solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic.  They should reread Article 1 Section 8 and the Bill of Rights before taking such a serious oath.  Most legislation violates key provisions of the Constitution in very basic ways, and if members can’t bring themselves to say no in the face of pressure from special interests, they have broken trust with their constituents and violated their oaths. Congress does not exist to serve special interests, it exists to protect the rule of law.

I also urge my colleagues to end unconstitutional wars overseas.  Stop the drone strikes; stop the covert activities and meddling in the internal affairs of other nations. Strive to observe “good faith and justice towards all Nations” as George Washington admonished.  We are only making more enemies, wasting lives, and bankrupting ourselves with the neoconservative, interventionist mindset that endorses pre-emptive war that now dominates both parties.

All foreign aid should end because it is blatantly unconstitutional. While it may be a relatively small part of our federal budget, for many countries it is a large part of theirs–and it creates perverse incentives for both our friends and enemies. There is no way members of Congress can know or understand the political, economic, legal, and social realities in the many nations to which they send taxpayer dollars.

Congress needs to stop accumulating more debt. US debt, monetized by the Federal Reserve, is the true threat to our national security. Revisiting the parameters of Article 1 Section 8 would be a good start.

Congress should resolve to respect personal liberty and free markets. Learn more about the free market and how it regulates commerce and produces greater prosperity better than any legislation or regulation. Understand that economic freedom IS freedom.  Resolve not to get in the way of voluntary contracts between consenting adults.  Stop bailing out failed yet politically connected companies and industries. Stop forcing people to engage in commerce when they don’t want to, and stop prohibiting them from buying and selling when they do want to.  Stop trying to legislate your ideas of fairness.  Protect property rights.  Protect the individual.  That is enough.

There are many more resolutions I would like to see my colleagues in Congress adopt, but respect for the Constitution and the oath of office should be at the core of everything members of Congress do in 2013.
..................................................................................................................................

Progressives rely on insight rather than instinct

..................................................................................................................................
Why It’s a Privilege to be a Progressive in 2013
By Paul Buchheit. December 31, 2012

We enter the new year with a degree of optimism, because Americans, except for Congress and the uninformed, are beginning to realize that cooperation transcends self-centeredness as a means of national betterment. Here are some of the specific reasons to be proud of our progressivism:

1.  We focus on community rather than the individual.

As George Lakoff put it, “For progressives, democracy is based on citizens caring about each other .. to provide through the government .. a means by which citizens pay for .. infrastructure .. education .. health and safety .. a justice system .. energy .. communication .. transportation.”

As a role model we have Howard Zinn, who cared about people, rather than Ayn Rand, who cared about herself.

Conservatives point to ‘individual’ successes like that of Bill Gates. But Bill Gates owes most of his good fortune to the thousands of software and hardware designers who shaped the technological industry over a half-century or more. A careful analysis of his rise shows that he had luck, networking skills, and a timely sense of opportunism, even to the point of taking the work of competitors and adapting it as his own.

That’s true for all the high-tech individuals who relied on a half-century of national research and development to make their fortunes. Apple’s first computer was introduced in the late 1970s, and the company still does most of its product and research development in the United States, with US-educated engineers and computer scientists. Google’s business is based on the Internet, which started as the Defense Department’s ARPANET, and their search engine derives from the Digital Library Initiative research at Stanford University.

Government funding hasn’t slowed down. According to the report Funding a Revolution, “Federal support has constituted roughly 70 percent of total university research funding in computer science and electrical engineering since 1976.”

In short, individuals can only succeed with the support of a nation.

2.  We focus on progress rather than profits.

Progressives are concerned about real issues that affect everyone, not just investors. We’re moved to action by studies that show we’re near the bottom in child poverty, children’s health and safety, and infant mortality.

We’re angry about being at the top in the number of billionaires and the number of people in jail, and in health care costs and military expenses.

We’re shocked by the fact that we have greater wealth inequality than every large country except Russia, Ukraine, and Lebanon.

We celebrate successes in the war on drugs and the battle against Citizens United, and on behalf of LGBT rights, marriage equality, pro-choice issues, and Obamacare.

3.  We rely on insight rather than instinct.

Conservatives preach a spirit of self-reliance that goes way beyond common sense, rejecting, for example, assistance programs that give nine-tenths of their benefits to the elderly, disabled, or working households.

They demand that the poor climb the economic ladder on their own even though the U.S. has less economic mobility than almost all other developed countries.

Research shows that conservatives will “rationalize away social inequalities in order to justify the status quo.” They are orderly and moralistic and dependent on authority. Liberals, on the other hand, are more open to new ideas and experiences, probably because they have more of the gray matter that helps to manage complexity in the thought processes.

But if we’re so smart..

.. Why do we lose the wars of language and emotion to the conservatives? Our opponents agree on big issues without too much thinking — like the Tea Party saying “less government” without considering the consequences.

We progressives agree on the need to take the trillion dollars of tax subsidies for the rich and use them for middle-class jobs in renewable energy technologies. But it’s not enough to agree. We need to put all our energy into that agreed-upon objective, to make America understand how important it is for ourselves and our children.

..................................................................................................................................

We should be angered and worried about warrantless surveillance

..................................................................................................................................
Senate Approves Warrantless Phone Tapping for Next Five Years
By Sam Biddle, December 28, 2012

By a vote of 73 to 23, the US Senate just voted for the warrantless surveillance of American citizens until 2017.

The vote, set to affirm to eradicate the FAA Sunsets Extension Act of 2012, means we'll be living with Bush-era spy laws for another half decade. In 2007, the Senate voted to grant blanket immunity to companies like AT&T, which conspired with the NSA to monitor American digital conversations without government oversight after 9/11. Today's vote continues that immunity, and provides further carte blanche for the American intelligence-gathering apparatus. Phone calls, texts, and emails are all fair game—and a judge doesn't have to give the OK, so long as it's in the name of counterterrorism. Which is a very easy guise.

This should anger and worry you. The EFF has a nice summary of why:

The FISA Amendments Act continues to be controversial; key portions of it were challenged in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court this term. In brief, the law allows the government to get secret FISA court orders-orders that do not require probable cause like regular warrants-for any emails or phone calls going to and from overseas. The communications only have to deal with "foreign intelligence information," a broad term that can mean virtually anything. And one secret FISA order can be issued against groups or categories of people-potentially affecting hundreds of thousands of Americans at once.

The bill now goes to Obama for his signature, which it wil almost surely get—he's a vocal supporter of the legislation. Domestic spying will be a reality for the rest of his administration, and beyond. 

..................................................................................................................................

Man to government: Take my money

..................................................................................................................................
Retired postal worker sends the federal government $50 a month

CNN video
..................................................................................................................................

A little lightheartedness...

..................................................
.

The cartoonist should have drawn black eyes on all of the GOP elephants!

.............................................................................................

Could we have a non-member as Speaker of the House?

..................................................................................................................................
If Boehner's booted, House should choose outsider replacement
By Norman J. Ornstein, published: Dec. 27, 2012

On Jan. 3, the 113th House will fulfill its express constitutional duty to choose its speaker. The result may well be the re-election of Rep. John A. Boehner, R-Ohio. But recent events have cast some doubt on that.

The vote will be taken by the new House, which has 233 Republicans, 200 Democrats and two vacancies. If 17 Republicans vote for someone other than Boehner, and he falls short of an absolute majority of all the votes cast, the House will be thrown into turmoil – no elected speaker, and the prospect of additional ballots and a whole lot of intrigue before the new speaker is chosen and sworn in.

Every sentient American knows why Boehner is having a restless holiday season: His make-or-break effort to get his colleagues to vote for his Plan B — to give him leverage in his negotiation over the “fiscal cliff” with President Barack Obama – broke, as Republicans balked at supporting their leader. With no Plan B, no alternative Plan C and a conservative base angry and frustrated, it is perhaps not surprising that a group of conservatives has reportedly hatched a plan to oust the speaker.

Boehner is a decent man, and a natural legislator, who is caught in a trap. Republican culture since Boehner’s predecessor, Dennis Hastert, has demanded that legislation brought to the House floor have the pledge of support from a majority of the majority – in other words, that House Republicans act in unison, or close to it, before there is any effort to garner Democratic votes, and that no bill go forward unless and until it has support from a substantial majority of Republicans.

It has been clear from the outset of the debate over the U.S. fiscal dilemma that, given the imperative of the no-tax pledge endorsed by 90 percent of House Republicans, no compromise would be achievable without the support of at least as many House Democrats as Republicans, and probably more.

Boehner’s dilemma is worsened by the fact that 50 or more House Republicans come from districts that are homogeneous echo chambers, made that way through redistricting and the “Big Sort” that has like-minded people living in close proximity to one another. None of them is threatened in a general election; all could be unseated in a contested primary.

With the Club for Growth and others putting million-dollar bounties on the heads of apostates who vote for any taxes, and with the conservative wind machine of talk radio having its effect, these lawmakers are immune from broader public pressure, the impact of a large election outcome or persuasion by their party leaders. For Boehner, fulfilling his constitutional responsibility as speaker of the House means getting the House to work its will, even if his party does not go along – but doing so imperils his speakership.

What if Boehner doesn’t survive? Go to Article I, Section 2: The Constitution does not say that the speaker of the House has to be a member of the House. In fact, the House can choose anybody a majority wants to fill the post. Every speaker has been a representative from the majority party. But these days, the old pattern clearly is not working.

Even in a multi-ballot marathon, there is no way 17 or more Republicans in the new House would opt for Nancy Pelosi, or any other Democrat. The danger is that a fatigued GOP will settle for a take-no-prisoners firebrand or find another candidate willing to pledge fealty to the radical minority within the majority, turning the current, really bad situation into something worse.

The best way out of this mess would be to find someone from outside the House to transcend the differences and alter the dysfunctional dynamic we are all enduring. Ideally, that individual would transcend politics and party – but after David Petraeus’ stumble, we don’t have many such candidates. It would have to be a partisan Republican.

One option would be Jon Huntsman. By any reasonable standard, he is a conservative Republican: As governor of Utah, he supported smaller government, lower taxes and balanced budgets, and he opted consistently for market-based solutions. As a presidential candidate, he supported positions that were in the wheelhouse of Ronald Reagan.

But a Speaker Huntsman would look beyond party and provide a different kind of leadership. He would drive a hard bargain with the president but would aim for a broad majority from the center out, not from the right fringe in. He could not force legislation onto the floor, but he would have immense moral suasion.

Another option would be Mitch Daniels, the longtime governor of Indiana and a favorite on the right.

Daniels has shown a remarkable ability to work with Democrats and Republicans, and he is a genuine fiscal conservative – meaning he does not worship at the shrine of tax cuts if they deepen deficits, and he would look for the kind of balanced approach to the fiscal problem put forward by Simpson-Bowles, Rivlin-Domenici and the Gang of Six.

America’s political dysfunction is driven by a Republican Party that has become an insurgent outlier. Unfortunately, even last month’s decisive election has not purged or ameliorated that dysfunction. It may be time for a different kind of out-of-the-box action.

Huntsman for speaker!

..................................................................................................................................

The majority of the majority says, "Boehner and Congress get to work!"

..................................................................................................................................
Fiscal cliff vote hinges on House Speaker Boehner
By LYNN SWEET, December 26, 2012

With President Barack Obama back in Washington on Thursday, cutting short his Hawaii vacation to deal with the looming fiscal cliff crisis, the most important question is not over taxes and spending.

The first and most important hurdle: Is House Speaker John Boehner willing to call a vote on a deal negotiated between House and Senate GOP and Democratic leaders and Obama — a deal that does not have the majority support of the GOP members of the House?

The House speaker has the power to call bills for a vote. Boehner — with a few exceptions — operates by what is known here as the “Hastert Rule,” named for former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, the Illinois Republican who ran the House between 1999 and 2007.

Under the “Hastert Rule,” in order for a measure to advance, it must have the support of the majority of the majority of the members of the House. Hastert discussed his governing principles in a Nov. 12, 2003, speech at the Library of Congress.

“My fifth principle is to please the majority of the majority,” Hastert said. “The job of speaker is not to expedite legislation that runs counter to the wishes of the majority of his majority. . . . On each piece of legislation, I actively seek to bring our party together. I do not feel comfortable scheduling any controversial legislation unless I know we have the votes on our side first.”

Boehner last week violated the Hastert Rule when he announced a vote for his “Plan B” fiscal cliff backup plan. He never brought his legislation to the floor for a vote because a rump group of about 20 hard-core anti-tax GOP lawmakers would not back his proposal, which would have let tax rates rise on the few hundred thousand earners in the U.S. with household income over $1 million.

Under a deadline imposed by Congress, a series of tax hikes and spending cuts starts to kick in if lawmakers do not act by Dec. 31. Obama campaigned on letting taxes go up for households making more than $250,000; he said he could go with a $400,000 level.

This lame-duck session of Congress has 241 Republicans and 191 Democrats with three vacancies, including the seat of former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. Under this configuration, it takes 217 votes to get a measure passed. The House has passed two bills to avoid the fiscal cliff — they were with GOP votes only — but they had no chance of getting Senate approval.

The Senate — under rules that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is trying to change — needs a supermajority of 60 votes to pass anything, which means the majority Democrats have to woo some GOP support to get anything done.

With only a few days left, Boehner’s threshold decision is whether to allow House members to vote on a measure negotiated between all the parties — but would only pass with the help of Democratic votes. That decision trumps everything else on the table right now.

The Senate is back from Christmas break on Thursday. Boehner told members he would give them a 48-hour notice to return, which means the earliest anything can happen is Saturday.

On Wednesday afternoon, Boehner and the other GOP House leaders said in a statement that the “Senate first must act” even as the lines of communication remain open.”

Illinois Rep. Mike Quigley told me Wednesday that for the first time, he can see Congress so frozen lawmakers run out the clock, “and I never would have said that before.”

A new survey by NORC, the independent research organization at the University of Chicago, found that 79 percent of those polled want lawmakers in Congress to work together to get things done.

That’s the majority of the majority.

..................................................................................................................................

The best xmas gift

................................................................................................

Do ya s'pose NORAD tracks these guys?

...............................................................................
                   Did you miss out on the "end of the world"?
                   Fear not, the Aliens are coming!
...............................................................................

21st century ideological politics at work

..................................................................................................................................
Piers Morgan should be deported?  In that case, how about yanking citizenship from the heads of the NRA and Larry Pratt, director of Gun Owners of America?  The latter are far more dangerous than Morgan is.  [snort]
..................................................................................................................................
Deport Piers Morgan? Some Americans want just that
"... Like many Brits of all political persuasions, Morgan says America's attitude toward guns is nuts. Last week, when he interviewed Larry Pratt, director of Gun Owners of America, the conversation got hot.

"You're an unbelievably stupid man, aren't you?" Morgan said at one point.

Rude, but nothing unusual in the British media, which has regularly attacked Morgan for, among other things, his alleged involvement in the British phone-hacking scandal (he denies it). But rudeness isn't a ground for deportation either. ..."

..................................................................................................................................
Thousands sign U.S. petition to deport Piers Morgan over gun comments
"... The petition, started on December 21 by a man identified as Kurt N. from Austin, Texas, accuses Morgan of subverting the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right to bear arms. ..."
..................................................................................................................................
Petition to Deport Piers Morgan Gains Internet Fame
"... But perhaps the best reason the president wouldn’t deport Morgan for advocating stricter gun laws on television is that he would be guilty of the same crime.

In a televised address on Wednesday, President Obama expressed support for Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapons ban and urged Congress to take “meaningful action” to prevent further gun violence. ..."
..................................................................................................................................
"Are there any other countries that will have me?" Piers Morgan laughs off petition to have him deported
"... Piers took the campaign in good humour, joking on Twitter: "If I do get deported from America for wanting fewer gun murders, are there any other countries that will have me?" He received takers from as far afield as Australia, Nigeria and the Philippines.

But later he added: "I don't care about petition to deport me. I do care about poor NY firefighters murdered/injured with an assault weapon today."..."

..................................................................................................................................

Some inspiration in case Olympia gets snow this week

..................................................................................................................................
10 Calvin and Hobbes comic strips involving hilariously morbid snowmen
..................................................................................................................................

1. Big Trees

2. Ready, aim…

3. Surgery

4. Snow Cone

5. Hard Work and Originality

6. Well-adjusted

7. Snow Sharks

8. Psychologist

9. Townsfolk

10. Bowling

Oh, really? Mitt didn't want to be President? Could have fooled us!

..................................................................................................................................
Mitt's Son Says He Never Wanted to be President Anyway
By Connor Simpson, December 23, 2012

If you thought the tale of how Mitt Romney lost the general election was already told, you would be wrong. Because there is so much left to tell, like how Mitt never wanted to be President anyway. 

At least, that's what Tagg Romney says in this new Boston Globe report on what went wrong with Romney's campaign. While the rest of the piece seems to say the problems lay in the Romney campaign's lack of technical advantage, and refusal to introduce the world to Mitt Romney, the human being, this little morsel from the Republican's son points to a larger problem:

“He wanted to be president less than anyone I’ve met in my life. He had no desire to . . . run,” said Tagg, who worked with his mother, Ann, to persuade his father to seek the presidency. “If he could have found someone else to take his place . . . he would have been ecstatic to step aside. 

So, yeah, that might explain why Mitt lost. Not wanting the job you need to publicly campaign for more than a year to get is step one in the "Not Getting Elected Guide for Dummies" book. Again, the rest of the mammoth piece, which you really should read, paints a larger picture of the struggle between Mitt's inner circle and his campaign advisors over whether they should humanize Mitt, which was ultimately their downfall. And, also, the Obama campaign had more staff and cooler tech stuff, like an app named Gordon, "after the person who punched Houdini in the stomach shortly before the magician died," and Narwhal, named after the Internet's favorite arctic whale.  

Mitt never stood a chance against Narwhal. 

..................................................................................................................................
Some of the comments posted on the article:
..................................................................................................................................
Gertrude 
he ran twice nominated once and didn't want to be president. now that makes sense only to romeny.

Jellybean 
glad he got his wish

Lizzy 
Typical loser statement...Well, I didn't want that anyway, so there!

Qwertyuiop 
Thank god he didn't become president, nothing worse then having who hates their job be the leader of the free world! There you go Romney supporters, he didn't want it! HA!

Independent Bear 
If the son is telling the truth, Gov. Romney has spent the last six years simply trying to obstruct the political process in America for his own entertainment, using billions of American dollars to do so.

Arnold 
It sure cost alot for someone who didn't want to win!

Slimshade 
Only the GOP would try to elect someone who didn't want to be President LOL
..................................................................................................................................

GOP has steadily lost its own center

..................................................................................................................................
The Absolutist Politics of Norquist and LaPierre Will Destroy the Republican Party
By David Paul, December 22, 2012

National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre really out-did himself this week. Speaking in response to the Newtown, Connecticut shooting, LaPierre concluded that armed guards in the schools were the answer. Like those old time liberals he so disdains, LaPierre's solution to mass murder in schools was to throw money at the problem, demanding that Congress "appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every single school in this nation."

In the days leading up to LaPierre's public statement, the NRA announced that it was "prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again." As it turns out, LaPierre offered nothing meaningful in his statement, and the only contributions were those that he demanded come from Congress --which is to say from the rest of us. On the issues of assault weapons or background checks, LaPierre would give no ground. And where might the money come from? No doubt from other federal education dollars. Perhaps we could divert National Science Foundation funding for science and mathematics education to pay for armed school guards.

Better that he had kept his mouth shut.

In one week, the two major planks of the Republican Party have demonstrated later stages of rot. Even more than its anti-abortion stance, the Republican Party is bound to its anti-tax pledge and pro-gun commitments. And those two political shibboleths are enforced by the organizational and political skills of the two men who are their public personae: Americans for Tax Reform founder Grover Norquist and LaPierre.

On Thursday, House Republicans walked out on Speaker John Boehner and formally rebuffed his public suggestion that they might be prepared to make a meaningful contribution to the fiscal cliff negotiations. But like the NRA, the House Republicans were unmoved by the urgency of the moment. The anti-tax pledge of the Republican party was formulated a quarter century ago under the premise that denying revenue to government would necessarily result in smaller government. Starve the beast was the mantra, and shrinking the size of government was the objective. But Norquist and his acolytes misjudged the American public and the Republican Party itself. As much as Americans in general, and Republicans in particular, might dislike paying taxes, neither has shown any interest in shrinking the size of government.

Even as Republicans rail away at the evils of debt, they have shown a consistent willingness to drive the nation's borrowing ever upward rather than see any reductions in spending on the military or Medicare, the programs most dear to their constituents. Even the much vaunted Ryan budget approved by the House eschewed any specifics on where future cuts might come from, and if our national politics have shown nothing, it is that to demand reductions in spending without specifics is vacuous hubris.

Then on Friday, Wayne LaPierre's words made a mockery of any serious discussion of school safety. In truth, there was nothing new in the tragedy in Newtown. While MSNBC host and erstwhile presidential candidate Joe Scarborough made an impassioned plea that the Newtown murders change everything, in fact that tragedy simply brought home to white, suburban America the reality of the random and tragic murders of children that have become commonplace across urban America, where 20 children a month die from random gun violence.

For LaPierre to suggest the militarization of schools ignores the metal detectors and guards already commonplace in urban schools. And perhaps that was his point. Perhaps unlike the rest of the nation that has, like Scarborough, seen Newtown as a siren call for change, LaPierre knows well that cities have been fighting a losing battle with guns for decades without the political muster to take him on. LaPierre knows well that there have been six mass shootings since Jared Lee Loughner shot Gabby Giffords two years ago, sparking calls for change. LaPierre will stand his ground, firm in the belief he need give no quarter, that the anger always subsides.

In their embrace of absolute doctrine without regard to the facts on the ground, the anti-tax and pro-gun movements have contributed to the undermining of democratic society. Both stances refuse dialog and disdain compromise. Taxes in America have declined steadily for the decades since Norquist came on the scene, and that is in large measure his doing. But Norquist and his movement utterly failed to wean Americans off of their reliance on and demand for public spending. Over the past decade alone, even as individual income taxes have declined by 25 percent as a share of GDP, the areas of public spending most dear to the Republican base --military and entitlements -- have grown faster than any other, up 56 percent and 37 percent as a share of GDP. Rather than shrink the size of government, Norquist has cultivated a world of followers content to give less to even as they demand more from their government. He has essentially turned John Kennedy's notion of public citizenship on its head, and contributed to Americans becoming a meaner and more self-centered electorate.

Which would seem to be an abt [sic] description of the contribution that Wayne LaPierre has made. Like Norquist, LaPierre is an absolutist, and absolutism is necessarily destructive of open dialog and compromise in a diverse democratic society. Few in America challenge the basic right of gun ownership in America, it is a reality and distinctive aspect of American culture dating to the nation's founding. Yet the demands of the NRA that even the most moderate limitations on gun sales and ownership be assessed only as part of the slippery slope to "government taking our guns" makes a mockery of the issue. After all, if the slope has been slippery, it is sliding in the wrong direction. Assault weapons. Semi-automatics with high-capacity magazines. Machine guns. Grenade launchers. Rocket propelled grenades. Depleted uranium bullets. These are not the arms envisioned by the founders.

For LaPierre to demand that the federal government fund armed guards in every school rather than simply engage in reasonable discussion of the ease with which any American can arm him or herself like a Navy Seal dropping into Abbottabad defies belief.

On the radio after the LaPierre statement, an NRA member suggested that what we really need is a list of mentally ill people circulated as a "do not sell" list to gun dealers. Really?

Mitt Romney may have lost the presidency due to a campaign that ignored the evolving diversity of the American electorate. But the Republican Party risks losing its salience as a political party as its members increasingly prove themselves unwilling and unable to demonstrate that they are free thinking adults able to have real discourse on the real challenges that face the country.

The Republican Party controls the House of Representatives in large part due to years of paying systematic attention to the decennial redistricting as a path to electoral advantage, but it is at risk of mistaking that gerrymandered majority to be evidence of popular support for its leadership on issues. Over the years, in thrall of Norquist and LaPierre and the Tea Party, the GOP has steadily lost its own center. What was once the party of grownups -- the party of fiscal prudence and sound judgement -- is increasingly slipping down a slope of its own and becoming a party of outliers and extremists. If nothing changes -- and this was the point of Scarborough's plea -- it will push away many who identify themselves as Republicans, but who increasingly find their party lacking the seriousness of purpose necessary to lead the nation.
..................................................................................................................................

Nailed it!

................................................................................................

Next?

...................................................................................................

Well..here we are

It's about 3 hours into 12/21/12, and the planet Niburi has yet to hit us, so.. Happy holidays,all! (And if the Mayans were right, disregard this message...) Oh, wait...you won't be reading it... Nevermind.. Hehehehe (Happy Holidays, anyway....) From the Rat

The Failure of "Plan B"

In a showdown with President Barack Obama, House Speaker John Boehner staked all of his political capital on his "Plan B" proposal. This proposal would have raised taxes on households with incomes of $1 million or more, while also providing lots of goodies on the Teabilly wish list. But a funny thing happened on the House floor: Boehner couldn't get the votes! Not even from his own party, who, at last count, holds a majority in the House of Representatives. The biggest problem appeared to be the name: Plan B is also a "morning after" contraceptive that the Religious Right (now, there's an oxymoron for ya) simply loves to hate. It's not inconceivable that many of them thought their Speaker had gone around the bend to support a woman's issue. Congress adjourned without even a vote on Boehner's proposal, leaving him not only with egg on his face, but the blame of a nation for failing to avoid what many call the "fiscal cliff." Today was a big day in D.C., but I suspect that January 3rd will be even bigger.

Is it time to stand up to the NRA? Can the NRA get off its high horse and admit its error?

..................................................................................................................................
Are Shooting Victims Collateral Damage Sacrifices to the Gun Worship God?
Independent’s Eye by Joe Gandelman, December 19, 2012

Journalists often exaggerate by using the phrase “shattered lives.”

But when it comes to the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, it isn’t an exaggeration.

What parent in their worst dreams could EVER think that when they kissed their little child goodbye in the morning, two hours later, their kid would be in a room with classmates, their teacher dead, screaming in terror as a demonic young man dressed in black systematically pumped 3 to 11 bullets into their little bodies?

The shooter’s brutality in seeking to specifically murder small children brings to mind a book I read years ago that still haunts me. It detailed the Nazi’s brutal program to exterminate Jews — just as the shooter in Sandy Hook clearly was trying to exterminate little kids. One passage included a description of Nazis positioning one child in front of another and shooting the first so the bullet then also killed the second…just for “fun.”  Another detailed Nazis hurling groups of Jewish children off a cliff, then burying them — even the surviving, moaning, injured ones.

The Newtown massacre is potentially the /911 [sic] of American mass murders.  In 9/11?s aftermath   America the greatest threats to America’s homeland have been from within the homeland. After 911 America was (for a while) united in national resolve to pull out all stops and go after terrorists and to make it harder for them to attack the United States ever again. Will it be the same here?

The difference is the bottom line:  some seemingly consider shooting victims “collateral damage.”

The victims are treated as mere sacrifices to the right to unfettered gun ownership and NRA preferences. They are deaths to be mourned but never allowed to SERIOUSLY change the status quo. Anyone who assertively argues it’s time for change is attacked as trying to take all of America’s guns away in an attempt to discredit or defeat them.

Mass murder by people with guns are reducing America’s once-safe-for-sure places. Subtract colleges, fast-food restaurants, malls, movie theaters, high schools — and now that quintessential “safe place,” the elementary school.

I never met them but I personally KNOW the adults and kids who perished in Newtown.

From September 2011 through May 2012 I drove 49,000 miles doing programs in 260 schools throughout the nation in my non-blogging incarnation. I saw schools locked up during school hours and mindful of threats.  I spent much time talking to kindergarten and first grade kids about their interests, hopes and dreams.  I saw caring parents, teachers and students trying to create a family environment in school.  I encountered dedicated teachers and administrators who loved their students.  I told friends:  “They would literally give their life for their kids.”

And now some did.

Will it be different this time?

Or does our society now handle these events with an increasingly sanctimonious formula:  expressions of grief, perfunctory outrage, nice-sounding vows for change — and the power of special interest money trumping all in the end?

Can it possibly be that when faced between preventing more cold, innocent corpses, politicians could opt instead for cold campaign contribution cash?

So far Republicans and the NRA are largely mum over the issue of a seriously regulating guns. So here’s a prediction about real gun control reform:

Don’t. Hold. Your. Breath.

It’s unlikely to happen no matter how many heart-wrenching sidebars we read or see about families who’ll never be the same, past victims who aren’t the same — and gravesites of young people who should not have been lying in the ground for many years to come.
..................................................................................................................................
Comment posted to this article:
..................................................................................................................................

dale:

The NRA opposed banning assault weapons and requiring mandatory background checks and favored keeping loopholes thru which crazies, criminals, and terrorists can easily buy unlimited assault weapons. Therefore, the NRA has much blood on its hands. The US has 30,000 gun deaths a year, compared to zero zero to 15 in Japan, less than 100 in Spain and Austria, 250 in Germany (with 25 million private guns), and 40 or so in the UK. All 33 peer nations have 90-99% fewer gun homicides in the US, owing to strict gun laws and enforcement. The enemy of this life saving program has been the NRA.

I am not blaming the members but the organizaton [sic], which is a front for the gun lobby.

It's time to ban weapons of mass murder and have real, common sense gun laws. It's time to stand up to the NRA. Those who can do so best are members. Where laws are strict in 33 peer nations, gun deaths are drastically reduced. ONly6 Russia, among industrialized nations, has a high gun death rate, and they also allow assault weapons. Connect the dots. Japan in 2006 (even with criminal gangs) had zero gun homicides. The Uk last year had 45. We had about 14,000!

The only difference is strict laws, strictly enforced. Germany with 1 eapon for every 3 people proves that even with many guns, strict gun laws work. The German police discharged only 35 bullets last year, fewer than the latest assault weapons crazy shot in a few minutes. It's madness not to copy those nations which have reduced gun murder by 90% (Germany) to 99% (Japan, Austria, Spain, etc). 

..................................................................................................................................

From one of the right wing's own "bizarros"

..................................................................................................................................
Sandy Hook and the Second Amendment
By Susan Brown, December 18, 2012

With emotions running high in response to the heart wrenching events that took place at the Sandy Hook Elementary School December 14, many of my liberal friends and family members believe now is the perfect time for gun control legislation.

As heartbreaking as it is that 20 children in Connecticut will not have the chance to open Christmas presents, celebrate birthdays, go on a first date, drive a car, graduate, get married, and have kids, there are millions of kids out there who will. And they are the reason why the rest of us need to fight for the freedoms guaranteed to us in the Constitution which Progressives are so predictably willing to give away.

Before Americans were able to corporately exhale upon hearing the news about the Connecticut shooting, liberals hopped on the gun control bandwagon. One of MSNBC’s many loose cannons, Ed Schultz, went on a rant saying, “Hiding behind the Second Amendment doesn’t cut it anymore,” and described our founders as slave-owning bigots. It’s real hard to wrap your hands around the hypocrisy of those who cry giant crocodile tears over the loss of these 20 precious children (and they should), but care little about millions of children who will never see the light of day due to abortion.

And here we go again; Progressives are manipulating the Sandy Hook massacre as a way to strike down the Second Amendment. Truth is, gun control is like putting a bandage on a gaping wound. Seems to me a better solution is to do something about the culture of violence currently destroying our society from the inside out — and place armed guards in schools in the meantime.  Chances are, had one been at Sandy Hook, I wouldn’t be writing about it today.

I may date myself here, but when I was a kid, I didn’t stay inside playing violent computer games or watching violent movies; I played outside with real people who picked flowers in the spring, climbed trees in the summer, jumped in leaf piles in the fall, and ice skated on frozen ponds in the winter.  And I grew up to be a responsible citizen and gun owner.

As I’ve written before, if you listen to liberals long enough it’s not too long before you find yourself in Bizarro World. And in the case of the Second Amendment, Progressives like Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) pretzel it into something it is not. On “Meet the Press” December 16, Feinstein inferred arming school guards is a crummy idea because “the rights of the few” (i.e. the millions who own guns) would, in her world, somehow “overcome the safety of the majority.” Say, what? Bizarro.

As brokenhearted as we all are over what happened in Connecticut, gun control will not stop those lacking certain emotional filters from doing bad things to children – and others.  Policies in China, for example, make it largely illegal for private citizens to own and sell guns. Possession or sale of a gun can lead to anywhere from a 3 year prison term to the death penalty. I digress to mention that because the Chinese government has little regard for human life, gun laws were devised to protect the tyrannical Chinese government from its citizens rather than the other way around.

Nevertheless, people find a way to do bad things, and in the case of the Chinese, crazy people are still hurting children. Oddly, on the same day the Sandy Hook massacre took place, a knife-wielding Chinese man stabbed almost two dozen children at an elementary school in central China. And he found a way to do it although the Chinese government recently enacted strict knife regulation measures after a spate of deadly knife and cleaver attacks on school children in China in 2010, killing 20 and wounding 50.

Before long, the Chinese will be eating steak with teaspoons, and so will we — if we relinquish our Second Amendment rights to those who would rather steal the rights of the masses than address our society’s moral decline. With that in mind, the best gift we can give our kids this Christmas is a future filled with the promise of freedom.
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
Some of the comments posted on this article:
..................................................................................................................................
Dave Darwent: 

How very stereotypical of Susan Brown, bringing up China's gun control policy as a warning that gun control is secretly a tyrant's tool for control of the untold millions who'll just rise up and start an armed revolution any day they damn well please.
How's that fairing for the Palestinians? Is Israel afraid of their ragtag collection of AK's and homemade rockets? Red Dawn junkies really need to get off this fantasy of going to war in their own towns against their own neighbors.
As for moral decline. I'll posit that one of the most nefarious propagators of violence, torture, and murder is none other than the Catholic Church between the 12th and 16 centuries. Islamic fundamentalists use morality to justify their violence too.

..................................................................................................................................
Winston Smith:

"Many of my liberal friends and family members believe now is the perfect time for gun control legislation." If not now, when?
After the next massacre?
Or the one after that?
How many more will it take before even you recognise that enough is enough?

..................................................................................................................................
John Wainwright:

Our favorite crier of crocodile tears now has decided that the loss of 20 children is not so important after all when stacked against her 'rights'; the rights that have allowed the 20 kids to be shot to death. Where do these people get the idea that we are a frontier country still with armed homeowners living behind door waiting for the next indian attack or the marauding gang to ride in on horseback to hurrah the town. What a fun existence these people must have waiting for catastrophe while armed to the teeth.

..................................................................................................................................

NRA is laying low

..................................................................................................................................
NRA goes silent after Connecticut school shooting
By PHILIP ELLIOTT, December 18, 2012

Where is the NRA?

The nation's largest gun-rights organization - typically outspoken about its positions even after shooting deaths - has gone all but silent since last week's rampage at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school that left 26 people dead, including 20 children.

Its Facebook page has disappeared. It has posted no tweets. It makes no mention of the shooting on its website. None of its leaders hit the media circuit Sunday to promote its support of the Second Amendment right to bear arms as the nation mourns the latest shooting victims and opens a new debate over gun restrictions. On Monday, the NRA offered no rebuttal as 300 anti-gun protesters marched to its Capitol Hill office.

After previous mass shootings - such as in Oregon and Wisconsin - the group was quick to both send its condolences and defend gun owners' constitutional rights, popular among millions of Americans. There's no indication that the National Rifle Association's silence this time is a signal that a change in its ardent opposition to gun restrictions is imminent. Nor has there been any explanation for its absence from the debate thus far.

The NRA, which claims 4.3 million members and is based in Northern Virginia, did not return telephone messages Monday seeking comment.

Its deep-pocketed efforts to oppose gun control laws have proven resilient. Firearms are in a third or more of U.S. households and suspicion runs deep of an overbearing government whenever it proposes expanding federal authority. The argument of gun-rights advocates that firearm ownership is a bedrock freedom as well as a necessary option for self-defense has proved persuasive enough to dampen political enthusiasm for substantial change.

Seldom has the NRA gone so long after a fatal shooting without a public presence. It resumed tweeting just one day after a gunman killed two people and then himself at an Oregon shopping mall last Tuesday, and one day after six people were fatally shot at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin in August.

The Connecticut shootings occurred three days after the incident in Oregon.

"The NRA's probably doing a good thing by laying low," said Hogan Gidley, a Republican strategist and gun owner who was a top aide to Rick Santorum's presidential bid. "Often after these tragedies, so many look to lay blame on someone, and the NRA is an easy whipping boy for this."

Indeed, since the Connecticut shootings, the NRA has been taunted and criticized at length, vitriol that may have prompted the shuttering of its Facebook page just a day after the association boasted about reaching 1.7 million supporters on the social media network.

Twitter users have been relentless, protesting the organization with hashtags like NoWayNRA.

The NRA has not responded to them. Its last tweets, sent Friday, offered a chance to win an auto flashlight.

Offline, some 300 protesters gathered outside the NRA's lobbying headquarters on Capitol Hill on Monday chanting, "Shame on the NRA" and waving signs declaring "Kill the 2nd Amendment, Not Children" and "Protect Children, Not Guns."

"I had to be here," said Gayle Fleming, 65, a real estate agent from Arlington, Va., saying she was attending her first anti-gun rally. "These were 20 babies. I will be at every rally, will sign every letter, call every congressman going forward."
Retired attorney Kathleen Buffon of Chevy Chase, Md., reflected on earlier mass shootings, saying: "All of the other ones, they've been terrible. This is the last straw. These were children."

"The NRA has had a stranglehold on Congress," she added as she marched toward the NRA's unmarked office. "It's time to call them out."

The group's reach on Capitol Hill is wide as it wields its deep pockets to defeat lawmakers, many of them Democrats, who push for restrictions on gun ownership.

The NRA outspent its chief opponent by a 73-1 margin to lobby the outgoing Congress, according to the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation, which tracks such spending. It spent more than 4,000 times its biggest opponents during the 2012 election.

In all, the group spent at least $24 million this election cycle - $16.8 million through its political action committee and nearly $7.5 million through its affiliated Institute for Legislative Action. Its chief foil, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, spent just $5,816.

On direct lobbying, the NRA also was mismatched. Through July 1, the NRA spent $4.4 million to lobby Congress to the Brady Campaign's $60,000. 
..................................................................................................................................

Boehner: the most optimistic person in D.C.

..................................................................................................................................
Boehner: a dealmaker and a survivor in tight spot
By Nancy Benac, December 15, 2012

It's been just a month on the calendar but seemingly a lifetime in politics since House Speaker John Boehner got a pricey bottle of red wine from President Barack Obama as a birthday present, a feel-good image that the speaker's aides tweeted far and wide.

The 63-year-old Ohio Republican has been caught up ever since in a monumental struggle over taxes and spending aimed at keeping the country from taking a year-end dive over the "fiscal cliff." Obama is tugging Boehner one way in pursuit of a budget deal, while conservatives yank the other way, some howling that he's already going wobbly on them and turning vindictive against those in his party who dare disagree.

Altogether, it's been more bar-room brawl than friendly wine-tasting for Boehner, whose job as speaker is at stake right along with the nation's economic future.

With Obama's re-election giving Democrats more leverage over Republicans, and far-right critics pushing a (hash)FireBoehner hashtag on Twitter, Boehner is in an incredibly tight spot.

To which the undaunted speaker responds: "I remain the most optimistic person in this town."

In truth, there aren't too many Democrats lining up to buy Boehner wine, or too many Republicans advocating his dismissal.

The baritone-voiced Boehner has a reputation as a deal-maker and a survivor. At least within his own party, he may be in a better place now than he was during a rough first two years as speaker that produced few solid accomplishments, pushed big budget decisions down the road and saw already-low congressional approval ratings sink even further.

The election that felled presidential nominee Mitt Romney, thrashed Senate Republicans and narrowed the GOP majority in the House also rid some of the loudest tea party voices in Boehner's fractious caucus and gave pause to other Republican legislators who felt their speaker had been too accommodating of Democrats in 2011 debt negotiations. Those talks collapsed at the 11th hour.

Now Obama and Boehner are right back at it, negotiating in person, by phone and by intermediaries, as they trade offers and counteroffers over huge questions about tax rates and spending. Obama wants more tax revenue, Boehner more spending cuts.

Questions about how far Boehner can be pushed, and at what personal price, are swirling everywhere from the Oval Office and the Capitol rotunda to late-night television.

"Saturday Night Live" played Boehner for laughs in a recent skit showing Obama defending a despondent speaker with a perpetual tan against Republican bullies who made him sit alone in the House cafeteria and threw his milk in the garbage. "You leave this poor orange man alone!" the stand-in president said.

Boehner may well be known for his tan, and for tearing up easily, but he's no pushover, says Alan Simpson, a Republican who was co-chairman of the president's deficit commission.

"He's strong and he's used to taking a lot of crap," says Simpson. "Once you're in that situation, you're going to work your way through."

Ron Peters, a University of Oklahoma professor who's written extensively about House speakers, says the fate of the talks may come down to Boehner asking himself, "as all speakers do: What do I want to be remembered for?"

"He's in a position to do something historic," says Peters. "And so what he needs to do is lead the Republicans through the process to get the deal that will become a legacy."

[snipped]

The big question is whether Boehner's caucus will back him if he and Obama craft a "grand bargain" to reduce the federal deficit that includes more new revenues than many Republicans can stomach.

"I just think he needs to negotiate the best deal possible that actually comports with our principles," says Rep. Raul Labrador of Idaho. "There are some deals that will be bad for all of us, and there are some deals that maybe I can't support but they're the best deals that he can get."

Boehner's supporters think that if it comes down to a choice between his job and a deal that puts the country on a better economic path, the speaker would choose the latter.

"I don't think he's here to do small things," says Feehery. "One thing that you understand when you have the speaker's job is that you're not going to hold this forever."
..................................................................................................................................

Republicans ignore single women at their peril

..................................................................................................................................
Many single women, a key bloc, are avoiding GOP
By Nicholas Riccardi, December 15, 2012

Sara Stevenson spends her working hours surrounded by Republicans, namely the married men who work alongside her in a Denver oil and gas firm company. But after hours and on weekends, she usually spends her time with other single women, and there's not a Republican in sight among the bunch.

"There was just no way I could have supported any Republican this year," said Stevenson, 31. "They skew so much to the religious right. ... They focused so much on taxes. It's not something that women in my demographic really care about. I've never heard my friends lament their taxes."

As Republicans dust off their Election Day drubbing last month, their party must confront the reality that the ranks of unmarried women are growing rapidly, and these voters overwhelmingly have backed Democrats for decades.

Women increasingly are graduating from college and joining the workforce, and postponing marriage. From 2000 to 2010, the number of unmarried women increased 18 percent, according to census data.

Republicans have spent the past month tallying up all their demographic weak spots, including with Hispanics and Asian-Americans. But some warn that single women, already one-quarter of the electorate, represent the most serious threat to the party's viability.

"It's a faster-growing demographic than most others," said Kellyanne Conway, a Republican pollster. "That's a cultural zeitgeist that demands a political response."

In 1960, the average American woman married at age 20. Now it's 27. That reflects, and is partly the cause of, a boom in solo living, with nearly one-third of all U.S. households comprised of single people living alone, according to Eric Klinenberg, a New York University sociologist and author of a book on the subject. In 1950, it was 9 percent.

Around the world, as women gain more education and earn more money, they increasingly are delaying marriage, said Stephanie Coontz, who teaches history and family studies at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., and is director of research for the Council on Contemporary Families. "Nowadays, women don't feel so driven to get married because they can support themselves," she said. "A lot of this is driven by women and a combination of lowering payoffs to just marrying any man and rising expectations" of what marriage will bring, she added.

For decades, Conway said, Democrats targeted unmarried women while the GOP dismissed them.

In the Nov. 6 election, President Barack Obama's campaign targeted this group in a series of direct mail and email pieces featuring the singer Beyonce and activist Lily Ledbetter, whose name was on the first bill Obama signed, making it easier for women to sue over unequal pay. The campaign also released an online video by actor and writer Lena Dunham that compared a woman's first time voting to losing her virginity.

Now, Conway said, "the Republicans have to decide if they want a one-party response or a two-party response."

In a presidential election dominated by debates over women's health and abortion, unmarried women backed Obama over Republican Mitt Romney by a 67-31 margin. Since 1992, when exit polls began identifying single voters, unmarried women have favored Democrats by similar margins.

Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster who wrote a book with Conway on the women's vote, said unmarried women are a tough group for the GOP to crack.

"Any way you cut it, this demographic is much more on their own and much more precarious and much more interested in a safety net," Lake said. "If you're married, you're much more likely to be a churchgoer and have your church as a community. If you're married, you're much more likely to have owned your home for a while and have that community to rely on. If you're married, you're more likely to have your spouse to depend on."

Single men are also significantly more likely to back Democrats than Republicans, but that is largely a function of their age, because they are largely younger. Unmarried women, however, are more evenly spread across all age groups and consistently lean Democratic, said Page S. Gardner, president of the Voter Participation Center, which tries to increase voting by single women. They also are much more likely to support abortion rights.

In Colorado, Democrats have assiduously focused on abortion and other health issues to win support from both married and single women. In 2010, Sen. Michael Bennet defied the Republican wave by hammering his tea party challenger on his opposition to abortion rights. This year, Obama campaigned in the state with activist Sandra Fluke, an unmarried law student branded a "slut" by commentator Rush Limbaugh for testifying before Congress in support of requiring that employer-provided health insurance covers contraception.

The Obama campaign attacked Romney on the airwaves over his refusal to support the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, his opposition to federal dollars for Planned Parenthood and his opposition to abortion rights.

Katy Atkinson, a GOP consultant in Denver, said that two elections in a row should be a warning sign for the GOP.

"That whole fighting social issues with economic issues just doesn't work," she said. Atkinson noted that both Romney, as well as Bennet's opponent, Ken Buck, contended that women really cared about pocketbook issues rather than reproductive issues. "While women care about pocketbook issues, they don't want to elect an extremist."

Conway said the GOP can win over unmarried women on economic matters. "What do women, married or unmarried, do every week?" Conway asked. "Do they fill up the gas tank or get an abortion?"

Lauren Koebcke, 32, is a glimmer of hope for Republicans. She is single, favors gay marriage and abortion rights but sides with the GOP on economic issues. The bad news for the GOP is that she's the only one of her single friends who votes Republican.

"Most people I know are Democrats and most Democrats I know are single," said Koebcke, a project manager in Austin, almost 300 miles west of Denver. "Most Republicans want home and hearth. They want babies and that family life."

Stevenson isn't sure whether she wants a family. "Most of us didn't make any money until we were 26 year old and we want to enjoy ourselves," she said. She logs 11 hour days analyzing legal issues for her energy company. "I can't imagine coming home and having to cook dinner and deal with someone else's problems," she said. "I'm not there yet."

She also knows that Republicans won't be getting her vote anytime soon.

Republican Senate candidates in Missouri and Indiana infuriated her when they tried to explain why they think rape victims shouldn't be allowed to have abortions. Stevenson stayed up late on election night just to confirm that they both lost.

The women's issues that Obama emphasized, such as equal pay for women and contraception coverage, are pocketbook issues to Stevenson. The fact that GOP candidates denigrated them as social issues just shows how out of touch the GOP is, she said.

"There are just so many off-putting comments from the Republican party," Stevenson said. "It's crazy to me that they're still acting as if women are a niche market."

..................................................................................................................................