Sen. Snowe retires, and RNC Chair blames Dems?

Senator Olympia Snowe, GOP Senator from Maine, announced yesterday that she will not run for re-election, taking another moderate Senator out of politics. Although she voted with the GOP 76% of the time, she was a true moderate. And in her announcement, she blasted the completely partisan way the Senate acts these days. This was a speech that almost Democrat in the White House, resident or writer, could have penned. So why did Reince Priebus, RNC Chairman, blame the Democrats? This is simply how out of touch with reality the GOP is now, and highlights why Senator Snowe is leaving the Senate. To most of the GOP, no matter how far right and far away from most American's views the GOP gets, they are never wrong. Not in their eyes. Senator Snowe, all sensible people of all stripes on the political spectrum will miss you. And the Senate will be a less sane and reasonable place with your departure.

A good night for Romney?

In winning both Arizona and Michigan, Mitt Romney did as well as he could for the night, but was it enough? Yes, the two wins keep other candidates out of the process, the establishment happy, and that's good. But if  tell you as a candidate that in your home state that you won't get half the vote and another candidate will win more delegates than you do, how would you react? That's right, you'd be down as all get out. You'd wonder why you're in the race. Mitt may not feel that way, but in the light of day tomorrow, many GOP money men will. Oh, they'll back him half-heartedly, which seems to be the way everyone backs Mitt. So Mitt, you won tonight, and you'll probably grind slowly to the nomination, but where's the passion for you? It was a good night for Mitt Romney, but does tonight really show, or more likely reinforce a problem, with Mitt? If so, how good of a night for Mitt could it really be?   

Romney in trouble no matter what happens tonight

Romney could win both primaries and still be in trouble, and for democracy, that's a good thing. Why is that? Because in Michigan, delegates are awarded to the winner in each of 14 districts. This as very close to proportional delegates, which is good for democracy. Why should a candidate win 51% of the vote in a primary election and get all the delegates? So why is this also bad for Romney? Because he may win a plurality of the votes in Michigan and get less than 40% of the delegates. And in truth, that's not really democracy, but it does make up a little where Santorum may get 30% of the votes and no delegates. Tell me, which sounds more like a democracy to you?  

Am I really a moderate?

I have given this blog to several people I know, and after reading it, most of them ask me, "Are you really a moderate? You bash on the GOP so much, you seem too liberal to me. We really can't be friends." Well, if that's the way you feel, maybe this will explain. If I lose liberal friends after they read this, I'll tell them the same same that I told my Tea Party friends: "Okay. I'll miss you. If you change your mind about being friends, let me know." Now, I believe that the art of politics is diplomacy and compromise. (Marriage is the same way. Think of any good marriage, and both the man and the woman get what they want about half the time. Think of any bad marriage, and one side imposes their will and refuses to listen to anything the other person says. Politics is the same way.) Now, the Tea Party believes in no compromise and has its politicians (I use that term loosely) have no tact or diplomacy. So yes, I am no fan of theirs. And since the Tea Party has taken over the GOP, I have hated the direction they are taking our Congress. But that doesn't mean I think all their ideas are bad. Do we need to balance the budget? Of course we do. But if I ask them are you willing to compromise, eliminating tax loopholes, thereby raising taxes. No, only shrinking the government will do. The we can cut the Defense budget, right? No, we need to take all of the cuts from domestic spending. So what are they giving up, where is their compromise?  There are few dozen things that I disagree with that the President has done (The big one is: Since bin Laden is dead, why are we in Afghanistan?), but at least he will compromise. Don't believe it? HHS and the Medical Association both wanted churches to have to include birth control in their health plan. It was the President that said that wasn't constitutional, and exempted churches while saying agencies of churches would have to provide birth control to those that wanted it. Think that's a fine line? Yes it is, and it is the act of compromise, it is the act of politics. Too bad the GOP doesn't know how to act.    

GOP needs a new name- The Repressive Party

I have long thought that the GOP needs to change the name of their party. Are they now the party that freed the slaves like Lincoln? No, they believe in states right? Are they now the party that broke up the monopolies Teddy Roosevelt? No, they are now the party of big business. Are they the party that believes in big ideas like when Ike started the interstate highway? No, they have no forward ideas, completely living in the past. Do they believe they should compromise like Reagan did? No, they want to tear down the government, not compromise with anyone to make it better. So what should be their new name? Tea Party? Maybe, but that doesn't really describe them. The Conservation  Party? No, they want to use up all the natural resources we have as soon as possible. They also want to get rid of the EPA, and go back to a time when businesses tried to ruin the air and water. The Repressive Party? Well they want to repress the votes of the poor, repress immigration, repress women's rights, repress dissent for anyone who believes big business is now running the country, and repress any ideas that are secular, against their religious beliefs, or forward-thinking. Yes, the GOP is now truly the Repressive Party.      

How far backwards have we come, America?

Over 50 years ago, a democratic candidate for President had to make a speech telling the country that as President, the Pope in Rome wouldn't be telling him how to run the country, not in foreign entanglements or in social policies at home. Why? Because the country had never elected a Catholic as President. And the country was worried that a religion would take over the country. That candidate, John F. Kennedy, became President and no, he never followed the Pope or the Church in changing the social fabric of our country. He understood that we are a country of laws, not religion. But now, a GOP candidate isn't saying he wants to keep religion out of government, but wants religious beliefs to trump laws. And all over the country, GOP governors, senators, and representative have been enacting laws ensuring religious beliefs are followed. And a large group of people are ecstatic. But it is a large step back for our country, which was founded to ensure no religion could infringe on people. A very large step backward indeed.    

CBS does a dis-service to KU/MU

Yes, I'm, biased, but CBS not having a few minutes before the KU/MU game to say a few words about this rivalry and its' demise is joke. The fact that these two teams are in the top 5 make it a travesty. Would it have been so difficult to start the game at 3:30 local? If it was, they should have let it be the 7:00 pm game on ESPN or Fox Sports.