I am happy to report that my book, America We Have A Problem: What's Really Wrong With Our Government And What You And I Must Do About It, has been published and is available at Amazon.com in both paperback and Kindle versions. The book is the result of a 10+ year self-study of our Nation's political process.
A friend of mine, Raymond Farrar, said, "When you change the way you look at a thing, the thing you look at changes." My intent in writing the book is to help people change the way they see the political process. My hope is that when they change the way they see it, they will recognize it for what it really is: the means by which career politicians pursue their own self-serving interests at the expense of finding long-term solutions to our Nation's problems. Most importantly, I offer suggestions on how we can achieve credible change. Here's a hint: Einstein said, "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."
You can preview the book on Amazon.com using the "Look Inside" feature. On the Amazon.com homepage complete a search by clicking on the drop down menu and select "Books." Type in America We Have A Problem, and hit enter.
If you decide to purchase my book, I thank you very much.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Saturday, August 18, 2012
On Thursday, 16 August 2012, CNN.com carried an opinion piece titled, "Can we fix a hyper-partisan Congress?" It was written by a former Congressman, Mickey Edwards. He served in Congress for 16 years then lost his bid for re-election because of redistricting: "In most states, candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives run in districts shaped by partisan leaders for party advantage, regardless of the effect on the rights of the people to be represented by somebody familiar with their concerns and interests." He goes on to explain, "That's how I, a city dweller with no rural experience, found myself representing farmers, ranchers and small town merchants...." How did it happen? "...a legislature dominated by a different party redrew my district...to strengthen their party...."
Here is a former Congressman who was effectively forced out merely for the partisan advantage of one party. Just a side note, I find it interesting that he, and those retiring from Congress, somehow find the ethical fortitude to help us really understand the self-serving nature of our political process, especially since they have nothing at stake and will no longer personally benefit from a system they operated in and supported.
Edwards provides insights on how the cultural aspects of the partisan divide are reinforced in Congress: "Just as Republicans must drink their coffee, read their newspapers and slurp their soup in a room off the House floor, and Democrats do their reading, drinking and eating in a different room, members of the two parties must speak from different places using different microphones positioned as an extension of their own side of the partisan divide." Earlier in his comments he described that there are separate podiums on the House floor facing the Democratic or Republican sides of the chamber from which D and R members speak respectively.
Edwards laments: "It surprises me still to hear people express amazement at the hyper-partisan nature of Congress and its resulting inability to deal collectively with the nation's problems. In a constitutional system that places most of the federal government's real power with the people's representatives, that is a serious problem."
He goes on to emphasize how our political culture contributes to Congress' "inability to deal collectively with the nation's problems:" "But it's not an accident. It's a direct result of the systems we've created to choose those representatives and the way Congress itself has been allowed to develop not as a single body of Americans but as a pit of rival power-seeking clubs to do battle." Notice he says "the systems we've created," and what has "been allowed to develop." Whose at fault? Basically all the stakeholders in the political process because we all help to maintain the political status quo. Consequently, Congress has become "a pit of rival power-seeking clubs to do battle."
What do they do battle over? They battle to be the majority party in Congress. And, why do they engage in battles to be the majority party? As Edwards points out, power. The majority party in Congress is the party in power. The leadership of the majority party holds the reins of that power. Consequently, the partisan interests of the parties and the self-serving interests of the parties' leadership supersede the need to "deal collectively with the nation's problems." And what is the result? As Edwards pointed out, "In a constitutional system that places most of the federal government's real power with the people's representatives, that is a serious problem."
To achieve credible change you and I must shake up the political status quo. You and I must change our patterns of thinking and behaving and stop being unwitting accomplices in the battles Edwards describes. If Congress suffers from an "inability to deal collectively with the nation's problems," then you and I must change Congress. The Constitution provides the solution, frequent elections. You and I must force rotation in office through the elective process. It is counter to the interests of the parties or their leadership to affective change themselves, so you and I must.
For the complete article please refer to:
Edwards, Mickey (2012). "Can we fix a hyper-partisan Congress?" CNN.com Thursday, 16, 2012. Retrieved from:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/16/opinion/edwards-congress-partisans/index.html?hpt=op_r1
Here is a former Congressman who was effectively forced out merely for the partisan advantage of one party. Just a side note, I find it interesting that he, and those retiring from Congress, somehow find the ethical fortitude to help us really understand the self-serving nature of our political process, especially since they have nothing at stake and will no longer personally benefit from a system they operated in and supported.
Edwards provides insights on how the cultural aspects of the partisan divide are reinforced in Congress: "Just as Republicans must drink their coffee, read their newspapers and slurp their soup in a room off the House floor, and Democrats do their reading, drinking and eating in a different room, members of the two parties must speak from different places using different microphones positioned as an extension of their own side of the partisan divide." Earlier in his comments he described that there are separate podiums on the House floor facing the Democratic or Republican sides of the chamber from which D and R members speak respectively.
Edwards laments: "It surprises me still to hear people express amazement at the hyper-partisan nature of Congress and its resulting inability to deal collectively with the nation's problems. In a constitutional system that places most of the federal government's real power with the people's representatives, that is a serious problem."
He goes on to emphasize how our political culture contributes to Congress' "inability to deal collectively with the nation's problems:" "But it's not an accident. It's a direct result of the systems we've created to choose those representatives and the way Congress itself has been allowed to develop not as a single body of Americans but as a pit of rival power-seeking clubs to do battle." Notice he says "the systems we've created," and what has "been allowed to develop." Whose at fault? Basically all the stakeholders in the political process because we all help to maintain the political status quo. Consequently, Congress has become "a pit of rival power-seeking clubs to do battle."
What do they do battle over? They battle to be the majority party in Congress. And, why do they engage in battles to be the majority party? As Edwards points out, power. The majority party in Congress is the party in power. The leadership of the majority party holds the reins of that power. Consequently, the partisan interests of the parties and the self-serving interests of the parties' leadership supersede the need to "deal collectively with the nation's problems." And what is the result? As Edwards pointed out, "In a constitutional system that places most of the federal government's real power with the people's representatives, that is a serious problem."
To achieve credible change you and I must shake up the political status quo. You and I must change our patterns of thinking and behaving and stop being unwitting accomplices in the battles Edwards describes. If Congress suffers from an "inability to deal collectively with the nation's problems," then you and I must change Congress. The Constitution provides the solution, frequent elections. You and I must force rotation in office through the elective process. It is counter to the interests of the parties or their leadership to affective change themselves, so you and I must.
For the complete article please refer to:
Edwards, Mickey (2012). "Can we fix a hyper-partisan Congress?" CNN.com Thursday, 16, 2012. Retrieved from:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/16/opinion/edwards-congress-partisans/index.html?hpt=op_r1
Saturday, July 21, 2012
"This time, Waxman's giving campaign his all" is the title of a Politico.com article about a threat to the incumbency of Henry Waxman (D-CA). The back story is that Waxman is the Ranking Member (Senior Democrat) on the "powerful" Energy and Commerce Committee. He was elected to Congress in 1974 (that's 38 years ago) and has "never received less than 61 percent of the vote" in his subsequent elections. Clearly Waxman is a firmly entrenched incumbent that has been untouchable for the past 38 years - that is 19 election cycles. However, this year is different.
As a result of the 2010 Census, Waxman's district has been redrawn (CA lost seats from its 50+ seat House delegation.) The take away from this article is not the fact that Waxman actually has to run a campaign this election cycle, but rather how entrenched incumbents act as if their seats belong to them so they can fulfill their own self-serving interests.
Waxman is quoted as saying, "Quite frankly, I haven't had to run a serious campaign in quite a long time." He goes on to say, "In past elections, I spent next to nothing," What did he do with the campaign cash he raised? "Through the years, Waxman has used his deep well of campaign cash almost exclusively to aid fellow Democrats." Why does he help fellow Democrats? He wants to resume his role as Chairman of the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee. The chairman is the most powerful person on the committee: the Ranking Member plays second fiddle. Waxman knows that his ability to be Chairman is tied directly to his party's winning the majority of seats in the House. Consequently, he wants to support his fellow Democrats.
What were the results of the re-districting? It:
"created a quandary for Waxman who must run for a seat in a district that is nearly 50 percent new to him. His Westside Los Angeles seat was reshaped to include a swath of the Palos Verdes Peninsula, a moderate-to-conservative area where Waxman's brand of bare-knuckled liberal politics isn't in fashion." The botton line: he didn't have to pay any real attention to his constituents until now. He was free to pursue his self-serving interests without any real accountability or consequences.
Perhaps most telling was Waxman's comment about the re-districting, "There was no regard for incumbents." Clearly he feels a sense of entitlement because of his incumbency and that he should have been put in a "safe" district where he could continue his long career in "public service" with no opposition.
Why do entrenched incumbents act the way they do? Look in the mirror. Remember, Waxman "never received less than 61 percent of the vote."
Isenstadt, Alex. "This time, Waxman's giving campaigning his all." July 18,2012. Political.com
The article can be found at:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78697.html
As a result of the 2010 Census, Waxman's district has been redrawn (CA lost seats from its 50+ seat House delegation.) The take away from this article is not the fact that Waxman actually has to run a campaign this election cycle, but rather how entrenched incumbents act as if their seats belong to them so they can fulfill their own self-serving interests.
Waxman is quoted as saying, "Quite frankly, I haven't had to run a serious campaign in quite a long time." He goes on to say, "In past elections, I spent next to nothing," What did he do with the campaign cash he raised? "Through the years, Waxman has used his deep well of campaign cash almost exclusively to aid fellow Democrats." Why does he help fellow Democrats? He wants to resume his role as Chairman of the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee. The chairman is the most powerful person on the committee: the Ranking Member plays second fiddle. Waxman knows that his ability to be Chairman is tied directly to his party's winning the majority of seats in the House. Consequently, he wants to support his fellow Democrats.
What were the results of the re-districting? It:
"created a quandary for Waxman who must run for a seat in a district that is nearly 50 percent new to him. His Westside Los Angeles seat was reshaped to include a swath of the Palos Verdes Peninsula, a moderate-to-conservative area where Waxman's brand of bare-knuckled liberal politics isn't in fashion." The botton line: he didn't have to pay any real attention to his constituents until now. He was free to pursue his self-serving interests without any real accountability or consequences.
Perhaps most telling was Waxman's comment about the re-districting, "There was no regard for incumbents." Clearly he feels a sense of entitlement because of his incumbency and that he should have been put in a "safe" district where he could continue his long career in "public service" with no opposition.
Why do entrenched incumbents act the way they do? Look in the mirror. Remember, Waxman "never received less than 61 percent of the vote."
Isenstadt, Alex. "This time, Waxman's giving campaigning his all." July 18,2012. Political.com
The article can be found at:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78697.html
Monday, March 26, 2012
Wink wink, nod nod.
Today CNN reported that an open microphone caught the following exchange between President Obama and President Medvedev of Russia.
"In a private conversation about the planned U.S.-led NATO missile defense system in Europe, President Barack Obama asked outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for space on the issue.
'This is my last election,' Obama told Medvedev. 'After my election I have more flexibility.'" Medvedev replied, "'I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir,' Medvedev said, referring to incoming President Vladimir Putin." Wink wink, nod nod!
This is what we allow to pass for governance in this country. This is clearly an example where the self-serving interests of the President trump the interests of the Nation. He is more concerned about his re-election than he is about doing his job. Isn't one of the primary jobs of the President national security? However, he would rather tackle the issue after he is re-elected because then he will have more "flexibility," wink wink, nod nod.
The CNN article with the associated video of the exchange can be found at:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/26/open-mic-catches-obama-asking-russian-president-for-space-on-missile-defense/?hpt=hp_c1
"In a private conversation about the planned U.S.-led NATO missile defense system in Europe, President Barack Obama asked outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for space on the issue.
'This is my last election,' Obama told Medvedev. 'After my election I have more flexibility.'" Medvedev replied, "'I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir,' Medvedev said, referring to incoming President Vladimir Putin." Wink wink, nod nod!
This is what we allow to pass for governance in this country. This is clearly an example where the self-serving interests of the President trump the interests of the Nation. He is more concerned about his re-election than he is about doing his job. Isn't one of the primary jobs of the President national security? However, he would rather tackle the issue after he is re-elected because then he will have more "flexibility," wink wink, nod nod.
The CNN article with the associated video of the exchange can be found at:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/26/open-mic-catches-obama-asking-russian-president-for-space-on-missile-defense/?hpt=hp_c1
Public Debate?! Part two.
Last Saturday I wrote the first installment of "Public Debate." How long did it take Democrats to unleash the strategy discussed in that posting? Here it is Monday and they are already attempting to capitalize in the Senate. Today POLITICO reported:
"Majority Leader Harry Reid called tax incentives for profitable big oil companies 'careless corporate welfare' and said Republicans were siding with the companies over consumers."
I italicized the last part to emphasis the emotional underpinnings to the political discourse the two parties engage in. Its always very effective to evoke an emotional response.
Is he right? Yes, but the point is made strictly for political gain as outlined in the Democratic strategy. However, his statement is deceptive. What he doesn't tell you is that Democrats take money from the same interest groups.
OpenSecrets.org reports on financial contributions made by industries like the Oil and Gas industry: to see the latest data they are reporting from this industry please click on the link:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?cycle=2012&ind=E01
Republicans do receive the majority of the funds doled out by this industry, thus far in 2012 they have received $13M+, but Democrats have also received $1.5M+ thus far this year. Reid's withholding this bit of information is a form of sophistry.
Part two reveals the Republican strategy to win the "gas price messaging war?":
"'Today, Democrats will propose raising taxes on America's energy manufacturers, something common sense and basic economics tell us will lead to even higher prices at the pump,' Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell said ahead of the vote. 'Frankly, I can't think of a better way to illustrate how completely and totally out of touch they are on this issue.'"
What utter nonsense! In the mean time, nothing is really accomplished.
The POLITICO article and be found at:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74499.html
"Majority Leader Harry Reid called tax incentives for profitable big oil companies 'careless corporate welfare' and said Republicans were siding with the companies over consumers."
I italicized the last part to emphasis the emotional underpinnings to the political discourse the two parties engage in. Its always very effective to evoke an emotional response.
Is he right? Yes, but the point is made strictly for political gain as outlined in the Democratic strategy. However, his statement is deceptive. What he doesn't tell you is that Democrats take money from the same interest groups.
OpenSecrets.org reports on financial contributions made by industries like the Oil and Gas industry: to see the latest data they are reporting from this industry please click on the link:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?cycle=2012&ind=E01
Republicans do receive the majority of the funds doled out by this industry, thus far in 2012 they have received $13M+, but Democrats have also received $1.5M+ thus far this year. Reid's withholding this bit of information is a form of sophistry.
Part two reveals the Republican strategy to win the "gas price messaging war?":
"'Today, Democrats will propose raising taxes on America's energy manufacturers, something common sense and basic economics tell us will lead to even higher prices at the pump,' Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell said ahead of the vote. 'Frankly, I can't think of a better way to illustrate how completely and totally out of touch they are on this issue.'"
What utter nonsense! In the mean time, nothing is really accomplished.
The POLITICO article and be found at:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74499.html
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Republicans in the spot light.
I seem to have focused on Democrats in my postings, but always caveated my comments by saying that Republicans engage in the same politics to fulfill their own self-serving ambitions. Today POLITICO carried an article titled, "Mitch McConnell eyes GOP takeover, health care reform repeal." Below are some excerpts from the article:
"McConnell, the most calculating Republican operator in the Senate, may have said his No. 1 goal is to defeat President Barack Obama in 2012. But becoming majority leader is at least a close second."
"It all points to a shrewd Republican leader trying to strengthen his hold on his conference...."
"For the campaign season, McConnell has appointed Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) to develop a joint agenda with House Republicans and the eventual GOP presidential nominee — a move aimed at both tamping down internal dissension and creating a stark contrast with Democrats. McConnell is beginning to speak one by one with GOP senators to secure enough commitments to ensure he remains Republican leader in 2013-14, according to senators."
"With the economy showing signs of life and the prospect of gas prices coming back to earth, McConnell signaled it may make more sense to focus on health care as a campaign tactic.
'It’s the one issue that you can absolutely predict will be there this fall,' McConnell said in the interview.
Are McConnell's ambitions self-serving? Absolutely! Does this article demonstrate that Republicans engage in the same politics as Democrats? Absolutely!
Whose interests are served? Career politicians at our expense.
Read the complete article at:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74384.html
"McConnell, the most calculating Republican operator in the Senate, may have said his No. 1 goal is to defeat President Barack Obama in 2012. But becoming majority leader is at least a close second."
"It all points to a shrewd Republican leader trying to strengthen his hold on his conference...."
"For the campaign season, McConnell has appointed Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) to develop a joint agenda with House Republicans and the eventual GOP presidential nominee — a move aimed at both tamping down internal dissension and creating a stark contrast with Democrats. McConnell is beginning to speak one by one with GOP senators to secure enough commitments to ensure he remains Republican leader in 2013-14, according to senators."
"With the economy showing signs of life and the prospect of gas prices coming back to earth, McConnell signaled it may make more sense to focus on health care as a campaign tactic.
'It’s the one issue that you can absolutely predict will be there this fall,' McConnell said in the interview.
Are McConnell's ambitions self-serving? Absolutely! Does this article demonstrate that Republicans engage in the same politics as Democrats? Absolutely!
Whose interests are served? Career politicians at our expense.
Read the complete article at:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74384.html
Public Debate?!
Today POLITICO carried an article titled,"Top Dems urge focus on oil companies." Two Democratic political strategists are recommending that Democrats engage in:
"...a public debate centered on exposing oil companies successful efforts to rig the system to favor their own profits over the interests of American consumers and expose their deep political and financial ties to conservatives in Congress that continue to defend their billions of dollars in tax breaks, progressives can win the gas price message war."
Well duh!
However, the fact that they are recommending this strategy is of no real consequence to the point I want to make. The point I want to make is that this is what passes for "public debate" on critical issues facing our Nation.
The real problem with this form of "public debate" is the fact that it has nothing to do with finding a solution or debating proposals. The only purpose of this strategy is to help Democratic candidates win. If their strategy works, and they "win the gas price message war," Democratic candidates can pursuade voters to vote against Republicans. By default they can win their elections because they are the only alternative.
What is the result of engaging in this form of "public debate?" A corrupt political process is perpetuated. And for what purpose is it perpetuated? To help career politicians fulfill their self-serving ambitions.
This article highlights a Democratic strategy. Republicans engage in the same type of strategizing because they have the same goal as Democrats: to win elections so they can pursue their own self-serving ambitions.
The full text of the strategy can be found at:
http://images.politico.com/global/2012/03/120324_gas_price_strategy.html
The full text of the POLITICO article can be found at:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/03/top-dems-urge-focus-on-oil-companies-118533.html
"...a public debate centered on exposing oil companies successful efforts to rig the system to favor their own profits over the interests of American consumers and expose their deep political and financial ties to conservatives in Congress that continue to defend their billions of dollars in tax breaks, progressives can win the gas price message war."
Well duh!
However, the fact that they are recommending this strategy is of no real consequence to the point I want to make. The point I want to make is that this is what passes for "public debate" on critical issues facing our Nation.
The real problem with this form of "public debate" is the fact that it has nothing to do with finding a solution or debating proposals. The only purpose of this strategy is to help Democratic candidates win. If their strategy works, and they "win the gas price message war," Democratic candidates can pursuade voters to vote against Republicans. By default they can win their elections because they are the only alternative.
What is the result of engaging in this form of "public debate?" A corrupt political process is perpetuated. And for what purpose is it perpetuated? To help career politicians fulfill their self-serving ambitions.
This article highlights a Democratic strategy. Republicans engage in the same type of strategizing because they have the same goal as Democrats: to win elections so they can pursue their own self-serving ambitions.
The full text of the strategy can be found at:
http://images.politico.com/global/2012/03/120324_gas_price_strategy.html
The full text of the POLITICO article can be found at:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/03/top-dems-urge-focus-on-oil-companies-118533.html
Thursday, March 15, 2012
The Smoking Gun
POLITICO carried a report today titled "New York Sen. Chuck Schumer schemes to hit GOP on more wedge issues." This article articulates in very clear and unambiguous terms what is wrong with the political process in this country. Here are some excerpts from the article:
"New York Sen. Chuck Schumer believes he has found a political weapon in the unlikeliest of places: the Violence Against Women Act. Republicans have several objections to the legislation, but instead of making changes, Schumer wants to fast track the bill to the floor, let the GOP block it, then allow Democrats to accuse Republicans of waging a 'war against women.'”
"It’s fodder for a campaign ad, and it’s not the only potential 30-second spot ready to spring from Senate leadership these days."
"Schumer has a plan for painting Republicans as anti-immigrant as well. He’s called the author of the Arizona immigration law to testify before his Judiciary subcommittee, bringing Capitol Hill attention to an issue that’s still front and center for Hispanic voters.
"None of these campaign-style attacks allow for the policy nuances or reasoning behind the GOP’s opposition, and some of the bills stand no chance of becoming law."
"But that’s not really the point."
"The real push behind this effort is to give Democrats reasons to portray Republicans as anti-women, anti-Latino and anti-middle class. In the aftermath of a fight over a payroll tax cut for American workers and an Obama contraception policy, Democrats are ready for this next set of wedge issues."
“If a party chooses to alienate the fastest-growing group of people in the country [Latinos] and the majority of people in the country, women, they do so at their peril,” Schumer said Wednesday. “This is an important issue.”
The article specifies that Schumer is the "Democrats chief policy and messaging guru."
Wikipedia defines politics as the "process by which groups of people make collective decisions." Don't we hire people like Schumer, through the elective process, to engage in politics with the goal of finding long-term solutions to our Nation's problems? Please show me any where in these excerpts that Schumer is engaging in the process for the good of the American people.
He acknowledges that immigration "is an important issue." But, why is it important? "The real push behind this effort is to give Democrats reasons to portray Republicans as anti-women, anti-Latino and anti-middle class." Through carefully crafted messaging the issue can be exploited for political gain helping Democratic candidates beat their Republican opponents this fall. Why is that important? Because Democrats want to maintain their majority in the Senate. Why is that important? Because it would enable Democratic leaders in the Senate, like Schumer, to maintain their hold on power. As the "chief policy and messaging guru" for the Democratic Party, he plays an integral role in achieving that objective.
It is illustrative to highlight specific points from the excerpts:
- "Schumer believes he has found a political weapon"
- "Republicans have several objections to the legislation, but instead of making changes, Schumer wants to fast track the bill to the floor, let the GOP block it, then allow Democrats to accuse Republicans of waging a 'war against women.'”
- bills stand no chance of becoming law
- The real push behind this effort is to give Democrats reasons to portray Republicans as anti-women, anti-Latino and anti-middle class.
Schumer wasn't going to make changes to the bill! Does that sound like politics with the interests of the Nation in mind?
Who benefits from this corruption of the political process? Career politicians who are empowered to pursue their long careers in "public service." They win and ultimately we loose.
The POLITICO article highlights how Democrats conduct politics. There is plenty of evidence that Republicans engage in the same corrupt practices.
The article can be found at POLITICO.com:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74041.html
"New York Sen. Chuck Schumer believes he has found a political weapon in the unlikeliest of places: the Violence Against Women Act. Republicans have several objections to the legislation, but instead of making changes, Schumer wants to fast track the bill to the floor, let the GOP block it, then allow Democrats to accuse Republicans of waging a 'war against women.'”
"It’s fodder for a campaign ad, and it’s not the only potential 30-second spot ready to spring from Senate leadership these days."
"Schumer has a plan for painting Republicans as anti-immigrant as well. He’s called the author of the Arizona immigration law to testify before his Judiciary subcommittee, bringing Capitol Hill attention to an issue that’s still front and center for Hispanic voters.
"None of these campaign-style attacks allow for the policy nuances or reasoning behind the GOP’s opposition, and some of the bills stand no chance of becoming law."
"But that’s not really the point."
"The real push behind this effort is to give Democrats reasons to portray Republicans as anti-women, anti-Latino and anti-middle class. In the aftermath of a fight over a payroll tax cut for American workers and an Obama contraception policy, Democrats are ready for this next set of wedge issues."
“If a party chooses to alienate the fastest-growing group of people in the country [Latinos] and the majority of people in the country, women, they do so at their peril,” Schumer said Wednesday. “This is an important issue.”
The article specifies that Schumer is the "Democrats chief policy and messaging guru."
Wikipedia defines politics as the "process by which groups of people make collective decisions." Don't we hire people like Schumer, through the elective process, to engage in politics with the goal of finding long-term solutions to our Nation's problems? Please show me any where in these excerpts that Schumer is engaging in the process for the good of the American people.
He acknowledges that immigration "is an important issue." But, why is it important? "The real push behind this effort is to give Democrats reasons to portray Republicans as anti-women, anti-Latino and anti-middle class." Through carefully crafted messaging the issue can be exploited for political gain helping Democratic candidates beat their Republican opponents this fall. Why is that important? Because Democrats want to maintain their majority in the Senate. Why is that important? Because it would enable Democratic leaders in the Senate, like Schumer, to maintain their hold on power. As the "chief policy and messaging guru" for the Democratic Party, he plays an integral role in achieving that objective.
It is illustrative to highlight specific points from the excerpts:
- "Schumer believes he has found a political weapon"
- "Republicans have several objections to the legislation, but instead of making changes, Schumer wants to fast track the bill to the floor, let the GOP block it, then allow Democrats to accuse Republicans of waging a 'war against women.'”
- bills stand no chance of becoming law
- The real push behind this effort is to give Democrats reasons to portray Republicans as anti-women, anti-Latino and anti-middle class.
Schumer wasn't going to make changes to the bill! Does that sound like politics with the interests of the Nation in mind?
Who benefits from this corruption of the political process? Career politicians who are empowered to pursue their long careers in "public service." They win and ultimately we loose.
The POLITICO article highlights how Democrats conduct politics. There is plenty of evidence that Republicans engage in the same corrupt practices.
The article can be found at POLITICO.com:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74041.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)