What to do with Meet the Press

There has been a lot of discussion on social networks about the need to replace David Gregory on Meet the Press. What got me interested was when the name Chuck Todd was raised, most liberals I follow went up in arms in anger. Since I watch his show Monday through Friday, I had no problem with it. But after getting lambasted, although I still think Chuck would be fine, I see their point. So let me say what I think is needed at Meet the Press.

Let me start by saying that anyone following Tim Russert would pale in comparison and would probably seen as a failure. What made Tim so good was his probing questions, and not the first one on a subject. His specialty was asking a question, and like a great lawyer, knowing what the answer would be. He then would either try to poke a hole in the statement or show where the person had flip-flopped. David Gregory has never shown the ability to follow up an obvious lie by a GOP and keep digging until it was seen as a lie. For this reason, I think he has to go.

Could Chuck do it? I think so, although he has stated his job is to give the American people both sides of the debate and let the country decide which side they agree with. In other words, host the debate, but don't be an attacking lawyer and try to find the flaws in the debate. That to me won't work either.

For either David or Chuck to be a good moderator, they have to show the flaws and lies of both sides of the debate. If they can't or won't do it, I know one reporter who can: Rachel Maddow. The right may howl, and she would have to learn to go after liberals just as hard as she goes after the GOP. But I have no doubt she would be like a great lawyer going after the other side. Give Rachel a try and see what happens. I can almost guarantee you, it wouldn't be boring.   

Should U.S. military be world's 800 pound gorilla?

The debate on how the military should be used in Iraq is one where several sides seem to have a point, yet all of them don't solve the problem, and in some cases make new problems. But the real question being debated is this: How should the military be used now and in the future.

The neo-hawks want the military to be like the 800 pound gorilla in the room, able to reach out and put right any wrongs in the world, stop any anti-USA movement anywhere in the world, and basically enforcing its beliefs on the world. This requires taking actions anywhere in the world, necessitating a large force and large DOD budgets. This group is basically GOP members like Senators Graham and McCain, but may also include Hillary Clinton. Is this really what most Americans want?

There are those on the other side of the spectrum that think it's time to pull back and take care of America first. Although not complete isolationists, this group believes that only a direct attack on America or an attack on something in its national interest, like an attack on an ally like Israel or a NATO nation, would mean military action is required. DOD budgets would go down, but yes, the military would become less powerful world-wide. Proponents of this style of military preparedness would include Senator Rand Paul and some far-left representatives in the House. Is this what most American want?

The third way of thinking of military power is the most middle-of-the-road way, but the one hardest to define. It basically says that the military must be strong enough to defend itself and also strong enough to help friends out when needed, but mustn't unilaterally take actions in areas of the world America isn't directly attacked. This is the nebulous world where some crises can be acted upon, with the help of others, and others can't, especially if countries in the area refuse to act. This is a gray area in many ways, including costs. Proponents for this style of military actions include President Obama. Is this what most Americans want?

It's hard to know what kind of military most Americans want since we've never had this debate. Isn't it time we had that debate?

Tea Party finding its limitations in most states.

There is no doubt that in most states, if not all 50 states, the Tea Party has taken the GOP from the moderate Republican Party of last 50 years. Most, if not all, of the elected officials in the GOP have now gone far to the right to ensure the GOP nomination. But tonight's GOP primary in Tennessee was just the latest proof of the limitations of the Tea Party.

In states like Tennessee, Mississippi, and even Kansas, the Tea Party is finding, at least at the state level, their brand of conservative, low taxes, Bible believing governance against women, and anti-immigration tendencies not only aren't acceptable to Democratic and Independent voters, but that many GOP voters don't want that kind of governing. This is why the moderate wing of the GOP, sometimes called the business wing or the establishment wing of the party, has won so many GOP primaries this year.

It's a very bad sign for the GOP/Tea Party that to get the nomination of the party, a state or national nominee has to go so far right that they are unacceptable to a majority of Americans. The Tea Party can continue as they are and stop the country from moving forward through Gerry manned districts and filibusters in the Senate, but that won't last long, with the changing demographics in the country. So unless they change their beliefs, they'll not only never truly govern the country, but will pass through history like the Whig Party: A footnote in history no one 100 years from now will even care about.

GOP can't get much right, can they?

 Having ALS, and the pain and with the trouble I have typing, I haven't wrote much since I got back on the computer. I am very slow, and I make a lot of mistakes. I'll try to blog more, but for now, let me run down a few items that have bothered me.

-- I understand that Israel needs to protect its people, but bombing homes and schools seems more than a little bit over the top. And I'm sorry, GOP, but having sympathy for innocent people in Gaza doesn't mean you're anti-Israel or that you hate the Jews.

-- How bad does it have to be in some Central American counties that 10s of thousands of parents would rather have their children attempt the journey to America, with all the problems, including rapes and death, than keep them at home? It's very sad that most GOP politicians don't care about that they don't care about those children, but sadder yet that 10s of millions of Americans not only don't care about them, but some are scared and some actually hate them.

-- The E-bola virus can't be transmitted by air and has been safely stored in this country for decades. How some in the GOP can frighten people by saying they are at risk of getting the virus because 2 people are getting treated here is pandering to the lowest base emotions of its base is beyond me.

-- After being wrong about everything that happened in Iraq after we invaded (They said it would take less than 6 month, we'd be hailed as liberators, very few if any lives would be lost, and Iraq's oil revenue would pay for it), how can anyone take anyone in the GOP or at Fox News believe what they say about the Obama Administration's foreign policy?

-- Do you really think, House GOP, that signing a bill that deports every child who's illegal but brought here by their parents really going to help you in any election? Are you that deluded?

Well, that's some of my thoughts. I hope you'll give me some of yours.  

Why I haven't posted, and the GOP are still idiots

For those of you who are wondering why I haven't blogged in a while, it is simply that I went to the hospital and was diagnosed with ALS. But I'm back now, and yes, the GOP are still a group of idiots. It doesn't matter if it's Immigration, the kids at the border, not funding the interstate highway system, or attempting to sue the President, they are simply wrong about everything. And I'm back to tell them about it.

GOP can't even get outrage right.

How bad has it gotten for the GOP recently? It's gotten so bad that they can't get their own outrage, or understand the outrage of liberals, correctly, and Fox News is just as confused. It really is the blind leading the blind.

The GOP has once again taken, with the Duck Dynasty controversy, the wrong track, not only in the liberal's outrage but their own. The GOP started by ripping A&E for suspending the patriarch of the family for anti-homosexual statements and for out-and-out misrepresenting blacks during the Jim Crow era in America. So, the GOP is now saying that company can't fire a person when that individual speaks in such a way? Well, that's really not what they meant. No, they meant that everyone has the right to speak their mind. Then, liberals asked where the outrage from the right was when Martin Bashir was fired for statements about Palin or when radio stations refused to play Dixie Chicks song after their lead singer spoke out about George W. Bush and the Iraq War if they believed that. So the GOP quickly changed their tactic and went after liberals, saying it wasn't right of liberals to get the Duck Dynasty clan father fired. But that's not what liberals did, but that didn't stop Fox News from ripping liberals apart and fomenting distrust and hatred of liberals among their followers. And this never-ending cycle continues to this day, with both the GOP and Fox News missing the original outrages of both themselves and liberals.

The GOP hasn't gotten much right recently, so I guess it shouldn't surprise anyone when they got the Duck Dynasty controversy wrong. But it is surprising that they can't even get their own outrage right.        

Is the GOP really that dumb? YES!

Late last week, the House passed a budget for the next 2 years, and sometime this week, the Senate will probably do the same. So, did Paul Ryan Sunday on Fox News say that the budget doesn't matter?

While Paul Ryan on Meet the Press, he was congenial, although he stated his far-right austerity views quite well. But then on Fox News, he went even farther. He said that when the debt limit ceiling vote comes up this spring, he would join other GOPers in trying to extract something for raising the debt ceiling, preferable the dismantling of the ACA. I just have to ask, WTF? You make a budget, but then say in 90 days or so you won't fund the budget unless you get your way about the ACA Do you really consider that a sane idea? Didn't October teach you anything? Do you really want to have the country default on bills you approved and passed?

Paul Ryan, just a few days after getting a budget passed, said Sunday that the GOP wouldn't raise the debt ceiling this spring unless changes were made. GOP, are you really that dumb? Unfortunately, the answer is YES.

   

The real GOP "civil war."

There has been a lot of discussion recently about the in-fighting in the GOP recently. But the recent budget agreement has shown exactly what the 2 sides are.

The fight in the GOP is not about ideology. Both sides believe that if you make it on your own, you're fine. If you don't make it on your own, it's your own fault, and you should be given no help by the government. No, it is simply a fight between those who will accept a compromise, and those that see the world, or at least the country, as a "Do it our way or else" place. In another way, one group thinks that the federal government, if not acceptable, at least is something that is needed in our society. The smaller the better, but compromise is needed to keep it running. The other camp believes that the federal government needs to be dismantled in every thing except national defense, and all other powers given back to the states.

The GOP's civil war has nothing to do with ideology, but is between one side that believes in compromise, and those that don't. If it was about ideology, the GOP might have a chance to be a national party. But it since it won't argue ideology, they'll always be a shrinking party.      

Do Democrats need their own "Tea Party" branch?

I saw this question on twitter earlier, and at first, I laughed like almost everyone else I saw when I read their reply. No, of course we (liberals) don't need a branch of the Democratic Party that hates gays, women, Hispanics, government, compromise, and several other things. But then I thought more of it, and I thought, well, a part of the party that believes in the party core beliefs above everything else, but will compromise? Yes, the Democratic Party needs many more of those kind of people.

For the last 20 years, the Democrats have been very obliging to the GOP in that they start negotiations acceding to most of what the GOP wants. The ACA was a GOP plan for universal health care, and then the Democrats agreed to delay most of the Act for 4 years, giving the GOP time to try and get rid of it before people could like it. The same thing happened with new regulations for the banking industry. Even the budget talks are starting from a number 1/3 closer to the number the GOP wanted for the budget than where the Democrats wanted it. How bad is it? Well, the Independent Bernie Sanders has views farther left than all but 3 or 4 of the Democrats in Congress. Last week, Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor said he believes that God should have the final say in how people are governed, and he sees no reason to limit guns. And he's a Democrat! Or, at least that's the party he's running with in Arkansas.

From 1932 until 1992, Democrats were the party of government helping people, a strong belief that government should put limits on the damage businesses could do to people and the environment, and a progressive tax code that gave opportunities to the poor, the needy, the impoverished, and the disabled. That wing of the Democratic Party, its Tea Party as it were, needs to stand up, be counted, and be at the forefront of the Democratic Party, just as the Tea Party is for the GOP.

The GOP looks very small and petty now.

After watching the last 2 days of the political talk shows, I'm just amazed with how small and petty the GOP has become. It's hard to believe just how far they've fallen in the last 30 years.

Looking back at some of the reporting on Nelson Mandela, I am taken aback by 2 things. The first is that the GOP actually went against the President, a man of their own party, in overriding Reagan's veto of sanctions against South Africa. They held the Senate, and enough GOP Senators worked with Democrats to do the right thing. This would never happen today, no matter what the issue. Also, I am more and more amazed at South African President de Klerk, who stepped down and allowed open elections, which led to Mandela's election. Compare that with what the GOP did when Obama was elected in 2008. Before he was ever sworn in, the GOP had gotten together and decided to oppose any and all things that the new President would propose.

In comparing the GOP of today with the GOP of the mid 1960s or even the leader of a government that ruled by apartheid, the GOP looks very small and petty. And it seems they have no desire to expand their ideas. I doubt a conference on how they should talk to women is going to solve that basic problem.  

Nelson Mandela still affects US politics

It was a sad day for almost every one in the world Thursday when Nelson Mandela died. But the actions from people Friday showed that he can effect politics here in America even today, and that some people are simply not on the right side of history. Here are a couple of examples of what I mean, and my thoughts.

-- If there was any question about the far right leaders reflecting the mainstream thoughts of the right in America, it was wiped out by the answer to statements by the GOP masses Friday. When both Speaker Boehner and Senator Ted Cruz made tepid statements simply mentioning the passing, their e-mails and twitter accounts were bombarded with statements saying that they couldn't be real GOPers if they even mentioning his death. And for every letter or tweet that said the Senator or the Speaker didn't go far enough to pay homage to Mandela, there were 100 saying they went to far, and that Mandela was a communist and murderer who shouldn't be praised or even noticed. This is further proof that, no matter what progressive may hope, that leaders in the GOP aren't playing to a fringe when they spout off far-right rhetoric, but to the mainstream of the right.
-- The left wasn't blameless either, though. Several on the right decided that Reagan must have been a racist to allow South Africa to have apartheid. The simply reason that the Reagan administration didn't believe that it was a good policy for America to tell any government how to run their country, especially its allies. And South Africa was an ally against Communism. Even when Reagan went to Germany and told the communists to "tear down this wall", he wasn't talking to the masses to overthrow the government, he was telling the government what he thought they should do. I doubt race had any thought in Reagan's mind when making his decision on this.
-- The GOP those many years ago was wrong about Mandela, was wrong about Iraq and 9/11, was wrong about WMDs in Iraq, and how the US military would be greeted by Iraqis. Other than George H. Bush's decision to kick Saddam out of Kuwait and then not attack Iraq, when was the last time the GOP got something right about foreign policies? Why do we still listen to them when it comes to diplomacy and war?
--Finally, the statements by Nancy Pelosi and Speaker Boehner on the death of Mandela showed why she was such a better Speaker than Boehner. The Speaker, who was writing for the entire House, wrote a short, uncaring note that had the warmth of a cookbook, while's Pelosi's note had warmth and feeling. In other words, how they interact with others were perfectly illustrated in their notes.

Nelson Mandela died Thursday, and the world lost a giant of a man, a true leader and legend. He hadn't been President of South Africa for several years, but his passing showed he still a great affect on US politics.
    

GOP: We'll impeach this imperial President!

Well, the GOP has decided that the can't repeal the ACA, but what they can do is impeach the President. Several GOP House members have stated they can impeach Obama because he is "An imperial President over-stepping the Constitution". Now, if this is actually true, I guess all these things have happened:
-- The Immigration Act has passed, amnesty has been given, and no one has been deported recently.
-- The SNAP program was fully funded for the next 20 years.
-- The transportation bill was enacted and billions of dollars is streaming to states build up the highway system.
-- Unemployment insurance is given to anyone losing their job for as long as they can't get another one, no matter how long it takes.
-- ENDA is enforced in every state.
-- Billions were poured into the rail system, and next year we'll have the fastest rail on the planet.
-- Head Start and Meals on Wheels is given as much money as they need to ensure no old person goes hungry or no child is denied admission into a good pre-school.

Should I go on? None of these things have happened. No, the President has simply done his job, and the GOP doesn't like it. Can we impeach the GOP?  

I told you I was a moderate.

While on twitter today, I realized just exactly how old I am and how strange I am to most people. We started comparing Presidents, and telling how many and which President we liked it, and  was easy to see by the response what party each person belonged to. But for me, I straddled the line.

Now, I'm fairly old, and I've been alive for 11 Presidents, and I had Obama as my #3 best President during my lifetime. My favorite: JFK. He pushed the country into space, which pushed children into the fields of math and science. It was during his administration that the country surged ahead in those areas, and our school systems lead the world. He pushed for civil rights, and averted war during the Cuban Missile Crisis. All in less than 3 years, and nothing he did seemed ultra liberal or in any way conservative. My second favorite President: George H. Bush. One of two Presidents I've personally met, he kicked Saddam out of Kuwait by force, but then went along with other world leaders in going no farther. He got a diplomatic agreement with most of the world to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, and when that was done, the mission was done. Troops came home, or back to units they came from. This is something neither his son or Obama has been able to do. He also put the country above his party, the GOP, when he saw where the deficit was headed and raised taxes. It cost him a second term, and as such is something that will never happen during a time of divided government again. Then I have Obama, who has brought the country back from the brink of a depression, killed bin Laden, and got health care for all Americans. This while the GOP has refused to work with him in any way.

So my top 3 Presidents during my lifetime are 2 Democrats and one Republican, a party that died a few years back. But I still think this shows me to be a moderate thinking man. Unfortunately, that also makes me just about extinct in the political field now, and that's sad.        

Recent history doesn't favor the GOP.

There has been a lot of chatter on social networks that the GOP can't be racists since it was the Democrats who actually were members of the KKK. If you go back far enough, that's true. But recent history isn't as nice to the GOP as they would like it to be.

If you go back in history to the start of the KKK, back in the late 1860s, it's obvious that those in the hoods were, almost totally, Democrats. The Republican Party, led by Lincoln, was the party pushing for abolition. But even Lincoln had to wait for a victory to announce the Emancipation Proclamation due to questions about slavery in the GOP. So immediately after the Civil War, it was the northern Democrats that were carpetbaggers, and those in the south that still believed in states rights and slavery couldn't be in the Party of Lincoln, and they were Democrats. And over the next 100 years, however, a schism in both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party emerged. For those Democrats from the north, soon after the turn of the century, they believed that government was need to stop the excess of big business, and leveling the playing field for everyone. Southern Democrats rallied behind their belief in religion and states rights. The GOP, their stronghold in the north, were for big businesses. Behind the northern Democrats, they were able to pass the New Deal, and after WWII, de-segregate the military. This act by President Truman caused the rift between northern and southern Democrats that became the push by the GOP for their Southern Strategy after the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act was passed in the mid 1960s. By this time, the GOP had only big business in their corner. They hadn't won the White House with a true member of the GOP (Eisenhower in 1952 was asked to run by both the GOP and the Democratic Party) since before the Great Depression. How to gain the White House, the GOP asked themselves. Their answer has lead to the 2 political parties that we know today. They would try to push dis-satisfied southern Democrats, who disliked the way both the Democratic Party and the federal government was over-riding states rights, to vote for them. Big business already wanted the federal government out of their lives, so the GOP, which started as the party for federal government outlawing states rights over slavery, became the small or no federal government party, giving southern states their rights to nullify federal laws, and against laws regulating businesses.

So, if you go back far enough in history, it was the Democratic Party that was against equal rights for all Americans. But recent history doesn't favor the GOP, who for the last 40 years has pushed for states rights nullifying federal laws, since those states rights have their background in segregation and racism.              

GOP: We'll mis-remember JFK, thank you very much.

The GOP has decided now that since almost everyone has such a strong, warm feeling for John F. Kennedy on the 50th anniversary of his death, they'll remember him as a conservative. But GOP, you're not remembering JFK, you're mis-remembering him.

For some reason, the GOP has put out a narrative this week that our 35th President was, and would be today, a conservative. Just so I know, GOP, was it the fact that he called Martin Luther King, Jr. when he was in jail that lead you to believe he'd be conservative today? Or was it the fact that he forced the University of Alabama to de-segregate, and pushed the federal government over states' rights that showed he wasn't a liberal? Maybe you think that he'd go against Teddy and the entire Kennedy family, and everything he stood for, and everything the family still stand for. After all, he didn't have Bobby with him every step of the way, and appoint him Attorney General, did he?

The GOP is like the rest of the country and looking back at the life and death of our 35th President, John F. Kennedy. But just like the rest of their ideas, they can't even get this right. But at least they're consistent. They can't get anything correct about what America is right now, why should we expect anything different when they look at the past?      

Why do you hate the President, GOP?

A letter to our local paper, The Kansas City Star, yesterday, was written by a local woman who gave the reasons why she opposes President Obama. She then conclude that race had nothing to do with it, and that people shouldn't be calling other people names. So, I wondered why she felt this way about the President. These are what she stated were her objections, and my answers to her. There are also other things that I'm adding here, as I have no limit on words I can use, and the paper has a 200 word limit.

She stated that she hated Obamacare (The ACA) and the auto bailout. I wondered, does she not like government regulations and tax breaks for companies? Does she think the government has no responsibility for what happens to millions of Americans if the economy collapses? Does she think all government regulations should be struck down, and no tax breaks given to companies? If so, does she hate the GOP for all the tax breaks and loopholes the oil companies have? If not, why? Is it just these things she's against?

She also stated that she disagrees with trying terrorists in civilian courts. So, she disagreed with both Clinton and George W. Bush, who had terrorists tried in civilian courts, right? She added she hated the expanding federal government. But, in fact, there are now 1000 fewer civilians working for the government than there was in 2004, the smallest amount in the Bush administration. She also hates the burgeoning debt under Obama. Did she feel the same way with Bush, who turned surplus budgets into massive debts?

She wrote that she hated that President Obama apologized to our enemies. Now, does she mean she hates that we opened up a dialogue with Iran, or is she talking about the truthful speech he gave in Egypt stating past administrations' actions and apologizing for those that were illegal and stopped the will of the people from electing their own leaders? She really doesn't think either is good for our country?

Shen then went on to write her dislike for the President's failed economic plan and the increasing dependency of people on the federal government. But really, since the GOP took the House in 2010, what economic plan has gotten through? In fact, she hates the fact that the GOP has ceased having a plan to get people back to work. They can't pass a transportation bill to rebuild roads and bridges, they can't pass a farm bill, other than to give big companies subsidies. This is part of the reason so many need the help of the government. And does she really want programs like Meals on Wheels and Head Start slashed?  

She concluded with Solyndra and Jeremiah Wright. Again, she doesn't believe that government should help companies. That's her prerogative, but in giving some businesses tax breaks while denying them to others, wasn't government already trying to decide winners and losers? Why did this start to bother her under Obama? And with Jeremiah Wright, isn't she saying that the racial makeup and background of his Christian reverend does bother her?

The lady who wrote the letter stating that race had nothing to do with her dislike with the President finished it with saying she doesn't like his black reverend. And throughout her letter, she stated that she disliked the President for doing things other Presidents did, and for some things that actually aren't true. So, when you get down to it, why is it you hate President Obama, GOP? Are you sure there isn't a deeper reason, and yet one that is only skin deep?              

Nationally, Christie is walking a very thin line.

Chris Christie won the election for his 2nd term Tuesday, giving a speech that was nothing but a "I'm running for the Presidency in 2016" speech. It took everyone of the far right Tea Party hopefuls for 2016 1 day to attack him. But in truth, Christie is walking a very thin line if he has any national aspirations.

In truth, Christie has views that, for the most part, are right in line with the Tea Party. But in defending himself from the right, he'll have to worry about voters not only on the left, but Independents and moderates in the GOP. These are just some of his views, and what he'll lose when he states them to the Tea Party:
-- He doesn't believe in abortion. For every Tea Party voter who will accept that view, he'll probably lose 2 votes, 1 from the middle and one from the left.
-- Christie believes in slashing education funds, and hates teachers who oppose these cuts. No, not just their union, but teachers themselves. For every vote he gets from the Tea Party, he'll lose 2 on the left and 1 in the middle.
-- Christie only accepted same-sex marriage in New Jersey because the state supreme court said he had to. Since he didn't take it to the Supreme Court, he'll lose probably 10 votes for every vote he gains from the Tea Party. They simply won't care how he felt, only that they'll hate that he didn't go any farther.

To top this off, 75% of New Jersey residents who were affected by Superstorm Sandy disapprove of his handling of the relief efforts. When this gets out to the national audience, Christie will probably lose millions of potential voters without gaining 1 vote from the Tea Party. They won't care about the money, except to be mad he accepted it and shook the President's hand.

If Chris Christie is running for the Presidency in 2016, he'll have to run on a very thin line. Every step he takes to prove he's a true conservative will lose him many voters, with no guarantee of Tea Party acceptance. No matter how much weight he loses, and I don't put his weight against him, that's going to be an easy wire for him to fall off of in 2016.            

Day-after election general thoughts.

Tuesday night really didn't throw any surprises in a true off-off year election. But that's didn't mean there aren't a few trends, and I have a few thoughts.

--- To no one's surprise, Chris Christie won a second term as New Jersey's governor, and for the life of me, I really don't understand why. This is a governor in a very Democratic state that has cut education funds, although a judge did put some of the money back in the budget, vetoed his own gun control bill after talking to the NRA, and refused to allow same-sex marriages until the state Supreme Court forced him to. The Democrats in New Jersey, for the most part, have rolled over for him, and the Democratic nominee for the governorship was right to call out her party. If the Democrats in the US Congress acted like those in New Jersey, the Affordable Care Act would have been defunded last month. Shame on them. And Democratic voters who voted for Christie and passed a minimum wage hike that Christie vetoed, shame on you. So you like the Governor, but don't like his policies?
--- Democrat Terry McAuliffe won the Virginia governor's race, making it the the first time in over 30 years that the party that was in the White House won the governorship. But in a lot of ways, it was a very sobering victory for Democrats. Ken Cuccinelli, the GOP nominee, was thought to be as far right as a politician could be, except for the Lieutenant Governor nominee, and he came within 4 points of winning. To the Tea Party, this won't be thought of as a loss, but as a back-stabbing by the GOP establishment, who pulled their money out of the race in the last week. Exit polling confirms this, as 25% of the Cuccinelli voters said that if he lost, it was because he wasn't right-wing enough. They won't blame his far right-wing views, but the establishment GOP.
--- A moderate GOPer beat a Tea Party backed GOP nominee in the GOP run-off in Alabama's #01 US Congressional district. Much is being made that the establishment GOP beat the Tea Party. But that district is in Mobile, AL, one of the few big towns in Alabama, and the home of a naval base. Simply, I think that if a moderate GOPer can't win in that kind of district, then they're dead all over the south. And with only a 4 point win, they're pretty close to dead right now.
--- The Tea Party not only didn't learn any lessons from Tuesday night, they're getting meaner and nastier. The Tea Party Nominee in Alabama refused to back the winner in the general election, and Cuccinelli has refused, so far, to talk to McAuliffe congratulating him. They're (The Tea Party) not going anywhere for a long time, and they have no desire to get along, even with those in their own party.

Tuesday night, several elections played big roles in the make-up of the country. But in most ways, it looks like it's just like it was Monday night. Most people don't like the Tea Party, and the Tea Party doesn't care. Their goal is to nullify every federal law they can, and last night was just a step along the way for them. It's everyone's job to stop them.  
  

Governing's a bitch, isn't it, GOP?

The House of Representatives this week set the work schedule for 2014 at 113 days. Yes, Speaker Boehner and the rest of the GOP leadership decided at 10 days a month at work is too much, so they set the bar at 9.5 days a month. But don't worry GOP, you probably won't work that many days. Why?

Well, the rest of the year, the House is scheduled to work 16 days. but the House leadership says that they probably won't be in sessions that many days because there's nothing for them to do. My answer to that: Nothing to do, you lazy jackasses? So to you, America doesn't need more jobs, or roads don't need to be fixed, or a farm bill doesn't need to get passed? That's not even saying anything about immigration, which is just sitting on your desk after the Senate passed it. I guess you don't care about any of those things, do you?

For the rest of the year, the House may not work the 16 days they're scheduled. Next year, they're only scheduled to work 113 days. Governing's a real pain in the ass to you, isn't it, GOP?    

Raise the minimum wage NOW!

There is a lot of talk about raising the minimum wage, and most of the talk is either how companies can't afford it and how it will start a round of inflation, or it needs to be raised to a living wage. When looking at a couple of facts, not conjecture, it's hard to see where either of the first two things would happen, and the last is definitely true.

Since job loss from the financial collapse of 2008/2009 bottomed out , 61% off all jobs gains have been minimum wage or just slightly higher. This means that it isn't just teenagers and first-time workers who are getting these jobs, but everyday Americans who were fired from middle-wage jobs that are taking these jobs. Now, I'm not suggesting that these jobs go for their current scales to $40,000 a year jobs, but that the salaries have to get to at least a living wage, maybe $10-11 an hour. Now, some might say that companies that have these jobs can't survive if salaries are raised that high. But in companies that pay these wages, retail and restaurant stores, wages are only 18% of expenses. So how would wage increases that made wages just 20 or 21% of expenses break a company? Most economists agree that companies could pass those costs to customers with little to no problems. One study says a McDonald's Meal Deal would go up by less than 70 cents, and most family-type restaurants would increase their meals less than a dollar. Retail costs to consumer, since most outlets do bigger business, would be increased no more than a Big Mac Meal. It's hard to see where inflation would run rampant, and several studies say the economy is so big, it would increase inflation by less than 1%.

When you look at facts and studies, it's easy to see that million of Americans need the minimum wage to increase, and it would have little effect on the economy. And there is even a few studies that show that when the minimum wage is raised, certain things like SNAP and money to the poor would actually be less needed, and it would help the deficit. So Congress, why aren't you looking at raising the minimum wage? It needs to be raised NOW!