Will politicians fight for what's good for the country?

I know why I could never get elected: I believe in doing what's best for the common good, and not always for what I believe in. In my 20 years in the Air Force, does anyone really think as an enlisted man I got to do what I thought was right? Now, as I spent more time in the Air Force, got some rank, and was put in position of some authority, of course I had some say. But does anyone think that even in leading people, I got to do what I think was best? I got a voice in deciding, but was rarely the final decision. And once I saw what was needed, or what was decided, I did what I could to ensure its success. And once a decision was made, I could tell people what they needed to know to do what was necessary. In this day and age, I know that I couldn't be elected. But does that mean that all politicians can't do what's best for the country? It sure seems like it to me.

I read that one Senator was in talks with the NRA to see if universal background checks for guns can be voted on and passed. Another said that there was no way that the background checks could pass. Now, this is an law that over 90% of all Americans believe should be enacted. Are the senators really saying that they can't go back to their state and explain why they voted for this law? This goes for other items too, ones that have a majority of people who believe that these laws should be enacted. Items such as magazine restrictions , the ban on the making of some rifles, and social issues such as legal equality for everyone. Now, you're saying that as a liberal, I could easily go against the NRA and the far right on such issues. That's true, but I could also go against the AARP on issues on means testing social security, and the environmental lobby on the Keystone Pipeline, which I've already said  that I want built. Would I change any of their minds? I doubt it, and maybe they could change my mind, although I doubt it. But I believe that I could get them to understand why I voted or would vote for such things. Why? Because I really believe that most Americans in every state want their representative to do what's best for the country. And I think that is what all elected officials should do. Money makes it difficult, but not impossible. And really, if an elected official can be swayed by money but not reasoning, do we really want that person representing us?

All representatives should, of course, represent their people. But can't they also fight for what's good for the country over everything else? I really don't know any more, and that makes a little sad on this snowy Sunday afternoon.    

Is Fox News the cause or the effect?

It's been very easy to see that for quite a while the GOP has been living in a different world than the rest of the country. And while it's also easy to see that Fox News is complicit in this, at times, it's tough to know if Fox News is the cause or the effect. And this week gave a few examples.

First, both Speaker of the House John Boehner and Ohio Governor John Kasich, after going on a mainstream television show and taking very moderate stances that are appealing to both Independents and Democrats, had a representative of theirs to go on Fox News and say that in fact, they didn't mean what they said on mainstream TV. In these cases, Fox News simply was the mouthpiece for and to the far right, and therefore the effect. But then, Thursday afternoon, at the exact time that President Obama was getting a medal from Israel for being their friend, and being broadcast live on cable news networks, Fox News decided not only to show a commercial rather than the ceremony, which is their prerogative, but the commercial was for an episode of Hannity asking if Obama was strengthening the hands of Israel's enemies. So while most of the country interested in politics saw the President being honored as a friend of Israel, those on the far right were being told that Obama is no friend of Israel. In that case, it's Fox News that's causing the disinformation given to the GOP.

It's been known for a while that Fox News has been in collusion with the GOP to sow disinformation, giving the far right an untrue view of what's going on in the world. But it's very hard to know if Fox News is the cause or the effect. At times, they seem to do both, and neither is good for the country.    

GOP can't even get their autopsy right.

At the end of the CPAC convention, GOP chairman Reince Priebus stood up and gave a rundown of what the party found to be the problems America has with the GOP today. And while there were several bullet points, many of them were condensed to one quick sentence: The country see the GOP as a group of rigid, uncompromising white men. And even with that information, they still didn't come to the right solutions.

Mr. Priebus said that what the GOP needed to do was to make sure the GOP has a constant presence in minority areas, and back this up with a $10 million plan of getting their message out. But like every thing else, the GOP missed the point completely. The country, in saying that the GOP is seen as rigid and uncompromising white men were actually saying that the party's ideas are old and stale and not what the country wants. They said that the party's plans for tax cuts for the rich, slashing domestic spending, and abolishing national health care and turning social security, medicare and medicaid into state programs aren't in any way what they want the country to do in the future. And for the most part, they are also against GOP plans to eliminate abortions, make illegal aliens legal but make them second class citizens, and limit the rights of the LGBT community. So what will having people in those communities preaching their vision of America do for the GOP? That's right, absolutely nothing.

The GOP gave itself an autopsy to find out what the party did so poorly in the 2012 election. But like just about everything else that they think about the country, they missed the mark. That's right, the GOP can't even get their own autopsy right.    

GOP, you believe what?

While there were many things to take away from the CPAC convention, the one that really struck me was the fact that a majority of the people there believes that the Iraq war, started under false pretenses by the George W.Bush administration, was the right thing to do and worth it. Now, while I can easily argue whether it was the right thing to do, I can understand those on the other side. But was it worth it? I don't see how anyone outside those who simply wanted Saddam gone could believe that. I'm not talking about the over 3,000 troops that it cost this country, although that is a tragedy in itself. I'm talking about whether we could literally afford it. At a time where the country is over 16 trillion dollars in debt, imagine if that was 1 to 3 trillion less. Yes, that was the cost of the Iraqi war, depending on the source and how many spent (The Washington Post had the high number, and it is not a liberal paper at all) and it is still growing. Can anyone believe that this action was really worth 6% to 18% of our deficit?
I can believe that the GOP can believe a lot of things now. But GOP you believe what about the Iraqi war?    

Another flaw in GOP thinking

I have heard for the last few months from the GOP that all President Obama wants to do is ensure that the Democrats win the House in 2014. But how would he do that? Well, to do that, the President would have to propose legislature that is widely accepted in the country and have the GOP block the agenda. See, right there, that's the flaw in their thinking. They think that the President has to do something horrible, but in fact, the President would have to do what the country wants, and it would be the GOP that would take actions, or actually, no action, to put themselves in a position to get kicked out of office. So then, who would be the ones that are taking actions that try to ensure a Democratic Party controlled House in 2014.

It is easy to see that when it comes to the idea of President Obama trying to ensure a change in House control in 2014, the GOP's idea makes no sense. Too bad for the GOP, as this seems to be way of looking at things they have become very used to seeing and believing in.    

Black eye for the Air Force.

Spending 20 years in the Air Force, I saw a lot of things, some good, some bad, and some indescribable. But I never thought I'd see or hear of something that would make me sad for the institution. So when I heard of the General who overturned a military court ruling, I had to write something.

A military court found a male airman guilty of sexually assaulting a female airman. This group that convicted was a group of 12 men. There were no females on the board. But then a General overturned the verdict and declared the male airman not guilty. This will allow the man to return to duty as if he had not been found guilty in a trial. I do not understand how any one in the military can overturn a court verdict, but the fact that this General did makes me sick to my stomach. If the General found a flaw in the procedures, he/she should have voided the verdict and set a date for a new trial. A Senate hearing will be convened to find out the reasons behind the General's actions, and it can't come a moment too soon, in my estimation.

The action by the General has given the Air Force a black eye. And if action ain't taken to reverse his/her decision or a full account of why the decision was taken, the black eye will spread to the rest of the country.      

Which filibuster do you prefer?

While Rand Paul's filibuster this week got all the attention, there was a second filibuster in the Senate this week. Didn't know that? That's one of the problems with Senate filibuster rules.

Senator Paul's filibuster on Wednesday, where he spoke and held the Senate floor for over 12 hours, was a throwback to a better time in the Senate where a Senator who wanted to put a hold on a nomination or a bill would have to stand on the Senate floor and explain his or her reasoning. Senator Paul was putting a hold on a vote on John Brennan being named to head the CIA over the CIA's use of drones.And while not everything the Senator Paul had to do with drones and the Mr. Brennan, he did get every news channel to take a few minutes and explain what the Senator was doing and why he was doing it. And in truth, drones and the use of them do need to be discussed. Then what happened? Well, he finally stopped speaking late Wednesday night, the Senate adjourned for the evening, and on Thursday, Mr. Brennan's nomination was brought forward and the Senate voted on his nomination. So, a Senator stopped the process and got a discussion started, and after that was done, the Senate took action and voted on Mr. Brennan. And by a simple majority, Mr. Brennan was approved. As the issues were discussed, and finally the will of the majority won out. So I had no problem with Senator Paul's filibuster.

Now, compare that to a filibuster, by possibly Senator McConnell, to stop a judge from being voted on for approval for a seat on the DC Court of Appeals. Why? It is thought that the judge in question is too liberal, but since no one got on the Senate floor, this isn't sure. And who put the hold on the nomination is up to debate, too. So when will there be the debate and when will the vote be taken? Well, there won't be one. See, this is the real Senate filibuster rule. No filibuster, no debate, and no vote will ever happen. Is that fair and democratic?

There were 2 filibusters in the Senate this week, and many were complaining about the Paul filibuster. I know which one I prefer. Which filibuster do you prefer?

A Bush said something right?

Jeb Bush is getting skewered from both sides of the aisle, and rightly so, on his flip-flop on immigration. But one thing that he did say actually is true. Of course, not in the way he meant it, but he still got that one thing right.

Jeb Bush is on record in this current flip-flop that illegal immigrants shouldn't have an easier path to citizenship than legal immigrants. Right on! But as usual, he and most of the media got it wrong. One thing that does need to be reformed is the fact that the time for legal immigrants to become citizens can be anywhere from 8 years to 24 years. 24 years? That's right, and you can look it up on government websites. Why? I really don't know. But imagine coming to this country legally and not being able to be a citizen until your children, who are citizens since they were born in this country, have children. Even at 8 years, it seems like an interminably long time. And 24 years doesn't seem fair for anyone.

Jeb Bush said that it isn't fair that it could take an illegal immigrant less time to become citizen than it does a legal immigrant to become one. But make it easier for legal immigrants, don't make it harder for others to become citizens.

Ann Romney is right. Well, about one thing, at least.

After watching a few minutes of the Mitt and Ann Romney's interview (?) on Fox News, I was reminded why I was so happy the night after the election. There really wasn't much they got right, or understood about the country, but one thing that Ann said she did hit right on the money: There would be no sequester if Mitt was in the White House. Sorry country, she did get that right. You see, under a Romney administration, no taxes would have been raised in December, and the GOP House would pass a budget which slash domestic expenditures and Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid by at least 30% while growing the Defense Department by 10%. Don't believe it? Look at the Ryan House budget. These draconian cuts are the only way to balance the budget in 30 years. Want to do it in ten? Then all spending except defense must be cut bu 50%. And yes, Mitt would sign that budget. Would the Democratic Party-controlled Senate stop it? No, they wouldn't try to stop the plan if the country showed it was what they wanted by voting in Romney.

So yes, Ann is right, and under a Romney administration, the country wouldn't be in the dire straights that it is in now. It would be in even dire straights. But that probably wouldn't bother her, Mitt, or member any of the Tea Party. Their concern isn't in the country, it's simply to dismantle the federal government.

State Department made the right move

Now liberals, don't take aim at me, but in my mind, the State Department made the right decision when it came to the Keystone Pipeline. Do I think the shale oil fields in Canada be drilled? No, I really don't. I understand the magnitude of the environmental problems that the drilling could cause. But that wasn't the question that the State Department was asked to look at, was it? Their job was to access the possible problems with the pipeline, at least as far as I know. And after all the governors approved the pipeline going through their states, was it fair for the State Department to say, NO? I don't think so. But if any of you have different information, and I am wrong in my belief of what the State Department was looking at, please let me know.

Now, I hope that the Canadian government decides that the fields shouldn't be drilled. But one way or another, once they said yes, oil companies were going to figure out a way to get the oil to a port. Refineries are already in New Orleans, and with the problems with deep water drilling that companies have been having, those refineries are not running at maximum capacity. So it makes the most sense to build a pipeline there. In the end, that's what the State Department decided, and that's why the State Department made the right move.