Doing a poll dance

The polls are interesting. President Obama still has a fairly high overall approval rating, at around 60 percent as of this writing, but his numbers are slipping when it comes to specifics. I’m reminded of Ronald Reagan’s poll numbers, which overall were high even as most people disagreed with his position on specific issues.

But pollsters aren’t stupid. They’re not going to ask questions that people aren’t equipped to answer. And they certainly can’t ask essay questions, which is a shame. I like essay questions, because I like to explain why I think the way I do.

So if I were asked who’s to blame for the lack of progress with the economy, jobs, health-care reform, and energy, I would want to say “Conservatives,” even though that probably wouldn’t be a choice.

I doubt if any question would be framed that way, though. It would probably be something simplistically stupid like, “Is President Obama doing a good job with the (insert one of the above)? And the choices of response would be “yes, no, or no opinion.” Dumb.

“Who’s to blame…” is a better question to ask — and the correct answer would indeed be “conservatives.” Why not Obama? Well because he has the right ideas, but he’s a little handcuffed by conservatives. So why not Republicans? Well, because conservatism isn’t the proprietary domain of the Republican party. It’s the %&#!* Blue-Dog Democrats who hold the key to the handcuffs, those so-called Democrats who represent conservative districts or states and have to promote themselves as “fiscal conservatives” in order to get elected.

Politics, we’re told, is the art of compromise — and that’s often true. But sometimes it isn’t. Obama made promises for sweeping change, and voters bought into that. Many new Democrats won seats on that platform, yet some of those may as well have run as Republicans. They are getting in the way of desperately needed change — and the have one unfortunate trait in common with their Republican colleagues: a terrible lack of foresight.

It’s easy to take a poll about the president. It’s much harder to create a poll that asks people to think. But you can’t think without information — and that’s what often slips through most people’s mental cracks.

Conservatives count on that.

The stimulus needs a boost?

There’s an old truism: “The wheels of government grind exceedingly slow.” We need to bear this in mind before we bitch about the apparent failure of the so-called stimulus plan.

Not that it was a perfect plan. It was too small, as many economists predicted, Paul Krugman among them. It was a compromise, to bring aboard a measly two Republicans. It was weak, which delighted those who hoped it would fail, who would use that failure to score political points — as they’ve already been doing.

See, we need to remember this about Republicans: they put party ahead of country. Don’t believe it? Listen to them. Pay attention. The Republican party is more important than the economy, just like it’s more important than climate change.

But let’s get back to the truism: maybe the stimulus plan was too modest, but we don’t know that for sure yet. What we do know is that the government can’t do anything fast. No one in their right mind would want the Treasury to throw money out the door. I actually don’t know how the government works in cases like this, and I’m too old to learn. I know there’s always a lot of paperwork involved, and that all by itself takes time

It’s true that we’re still hemorrhaging jobs, but once again economists try to remind us that jobs are a lagging indicator of economic recovery. Those still with jobs have to start spending again, and only then will the rehiring begin. They’ll start spending when they regain some confidence in the economy — and Republicans are doing their best to undermine that confidence.

A lot of things have to happen for this economy to turn around. Banks have to start lending again. The foreclosure problem has to be solved. People have to start buying houses again. Demand for other goods has to rise. Existing jobs have to be preserved. Perhaps most importantly, Republicans have to shut up.

I urge those independents out there (the ones I described as kinda wishy-washy, philosophically, in an earlier post) to resist the urge to throw their support behind Sarah Palin, or some other equally unqualified conservative (one George Bush in our lifetime is enough thank you) and be patient. Americans hung tough during the 1930s. We can do it again.

Where the lunatics reside

I’m an American who happens to vote Democratic and thinks of himself as a liberal. I’m happiest when government is in the hands of Democrats, but realistic enough to know that won’t always be the case. When it’s not, I can only hope that I’ll feel comfortable with the person who was elected president. I sure don’t want to be scared because of who’s in the White House.

I was pretty scared for the eight years that George Bush was president, and Barack Obama’s election came as a tremendous relief. There was simply no logic to the support for Bush then, and there’s none today. However, while his political philosophy didn’t jive with mine, his biggest flaw, to me, was his stupidity. He simply wasn’t qualified to be president, which is why he was so easily influenced by the lunatics who advised and controlled him. We may never know for sure, but I have a hunch that Cheney was really running the show — at least for the first five years or so.

I’m sure there are liberal lunatics out there, but if there are, they’re not very visible or influential. I think the Republicans have a lock on public lunatics right now. I hasten to add that I don’t mean to hurt anyone’s feelings by referring to them as a lunatic. Being a lunatic is probably like being a diabetic. Chances are, you just can’t help it.

Some of the lunatics are not exactly in politics — they just talk about it. I refer here to people like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and other conservatives who really don’t know what conservative means. Such lunatics rant, rave, lie, distort, fabricate, and in general don’t care about what they say as long as it’s incendiary. Other lunatics — your John Boehners, James Inhofes, Michelle Bachmans, Sam Brownbacks, for example, are in public office. Mostly they’re just dumb. Like Bachman, they will occasionally say something outrageous, but for the most part they just don’t have their facts straight.

I’m bringing this up now because of the sheer lunacy couched as criticism of President Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee. Seems like no sooner is one critique debunked than one or the other of these lunatics — Limbaugh chief among them — takes it to the next eye-rolling level. I guess I view Limbaugh as something of an intelligence test. Anyone who believes him fails the test.

Limbaugh has boasted about his income. Personally, I’d rather be poor than be considered a fool and a blowhard by millions upon millions of people.

Advice for the Supreme Court

To be sure I am a layman, but I’ve been doing this kind of stuff for a long time, and I’ve connected a lot of dots. And so, it’s time to impart some wisdom to those robed men and women of the United States Supreme Court. (And yes, I do have the audacity to do so.)

On your typical court, you have your conservatives, you have your liberals, and you have the occasional centrist. To many of us, one of the most crucial aspects of a presidential election is, the winner gets to pick new justices. And while presidents come and go (often not soon enough), justices serve for life.

So, your honors, here goes: When deciding cases, think compassionately. I’m sure the Founding Fathers would want you to, and if you happen to be a Christian, you might also want to consider what would make Jesus happy.

The Consitution, we are told, was designed to be a flexible document, one that could be amended through a very complex process. However, that very document provided for your existence, in the hope that nine very wise people could resolve disputes of law when constitutional questions arose.

Now, we know the Founders were a pretty compassionate bunch of guys — look at the Bill of Rights. They just didn’t want people to be screwed over. And if you need more evidence of that, check the Declaration of Independence, which is the mother of the Constitution. “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” things we are all entitled to, thanks to our Creator. Let this be your guide when making tough decisions. Never mind the “stict interpretation” of the Constitution, as some of you use as an excuse to not give a damn about people. I don’t think “strict interpretation” is what the Founders had in mind. I think they were counting on you to use not only your heads when deciding cases, but your hearts as well.

More than some of you seem willing to admit, the Founding Fathers knew times would change. They just didn’t know quite how. They left it up to all of us to adapt. I don’t think it was their intention for any of us to remain stuck in the Eighteenth Century. The Constitution is a living document, but only if you let it live.

Oh, no… not again

Just in time for the upcoming presidential election, the non-issue of gay marriage is resurfacing. Thanks to a recent California Supreme Court decision, a law banning gay marriage in that state was struck down — once again, something for conservatives to rally around.

This is an issue for candidates who have nothing else to talk about. It’s an issue for candidates with no new ideas. It’s an issue for candidates who are embarrassed to talk about their own records, or the record of their party. It’s an issue meant to distract from real issues. And, it’s an issue that has nothing to do with “morality” or “preserving family values” but rather an issue with a single purpose — to gain or keep political power. Opponents of gay marriage KNOW it won’t undermine the moral fabric of the United States. Hell, there are too many other ways to do that, and we’ve done just about all of them

For instance, we’ve perpetuated a health-care system that leaves tens of millions of people without health care. We’ve allowed our infrastructure to decay. We’ve left education as an afterthought. We invaded a country that did nothing to us and ruined our credibility as a the leader of the free world. We are a country that would elect an idiot as president simply because he was opposed to gay marriage. What jerks we are.

We need to put first things first. We ought to also acknowledge that, like it or not, the Constitution already guarantees equal rights for all, under the law, via the Fourteenth Amendment. For that reason alone we should realize that any law that prohibits marriage based on gender is already unconstitutional… like it or not.

Personally, I don’t care who gets married. If two people love each other, who am I to tell them they can’t marry? If two men or two women marry, my world won’t come to an end. I won’t feel a thing, except happiness for them, wherever they are. I won’t feel the kind of pain that I feel when I go to the grocery store or gas station. I won’t feel the kind of shame I feel when I hear the news about more deaths in Iraq. My heart won’t ache like it does for the young mother who can’t get health care for herself and her children because she’s poor. I won’t be embarrassed as I am when I hear how poorly our students fare compared to students from other industrialized countries. I won’t worry as I do when I drive across a highway overpass, wondering if it will collapse.

Can you imagine someone putting all these considerations aside when making their choice come election day, selecting instead someone who will make them safe from gay marriage? I sure can’t.

I’m not making this up!

America was NOT founded as a Christian nation, okay? So, to all those who claim that it was, as part of their efforts to win the hearts and minds of voters, I say, “Give it up.”

How do I know America wasn’t founded as a Christian nation? Because I’ve read the Declaration of Independence. It quite clearly lists the reasons the united colonies wished to become independent of Great Britain. It lists in great detail the grievances against King George III, and nowhere in that list is religion mentioned. In other words, whatever the reasons our forefathers declared independence, religion had nothing to do with it.

And what were some of those reasons? Well, some had to do with basic liberties — the ability of the colonies to govern themselves, for instance, to have representative government, to assure due process of the law. In colonial America, citizens were forced to endure the presence of British troops in their midst, to quarter them.

But many of the reasons were economic. Our forefathers resented unfair taxes, resented being prohibited from freely trading abroad. It’s worth recalling that among the events which so inflamed our colonial leaders were such laws as the Stamp Act of 1765 and the Townsend Act of 1767, which imposed taxes on colonial commerce. John Hancock, the first signatory of the Declaration of Independence, was indicted for smuggling tea into the colonies from Holland, in order to avoid paying what were considered to be unfair import taxes. In 1773 was the famous Boston Tea Party, when the Sons of Liberty, disguised as Indians, boarded the British merchant vessel Dartmouth and tossed casks of tea into Boston Harbor.

It is probable that however much the founding fathers cherished individual liberty they cherished free commerce and profit even more. I don’t mean to criticize their motives, however, for ultimately they devised a pretty decent system of democratic government.

What has evolved, I believe, is the hypocrisy of using the false notion of our Christian origins to ensure the continuation of what has become a ravaging free enterprise system, one that actually destroys many of the sought-after liberties detailed in the Declaration of Independence.

When religion did come up, it was in the Bill of Rights, and then not only to assure freedom of religion but to prohibit the establishment of a state religion. As far as I know, none of the founders ever thought of the US as a Christian nation. I wonder why some do today.

Today’s conservatives benefit from the collective ignorance of the electorate. It is in their interest to keep people undereducated and poorly informed. That so many people buy into their messages is proof of that.

The Free Market: Hates us, loves our money

I get tired of hearing conservatives tell us how the free market should decide things that are important to us, things like (but not limited to) health care. If you’ve been paying attention, you’ll know that the free market doesn’t really care about our health and well being, not unless they can make a buck off it.

The free market doesn’t care if we’re all obese or diabetic because of the food they sell us, for instance, because then they can create “pharmaceuticals” to combat these conditions, or exercise equipment, or books about eating healthy. They can offer us Lean Cuisines and Healthy Choices to create the illusion that they want us to eat better. If we were all lean and healthy, the stock market would drop.

The free market doesn’t care about the planet either. They give us the cars that use too much gas, insisting that this is what we demand. They come up with new gadgets that require ever-more electricity, stressing the grid and dumping more and more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. They build homes that are hard to heat or cool naturally, but that’s okay because they have all the air conditioners and heat pumps we need.

Conservatives revere the free market. They see it as a beneficient god to whom we can pray for all the good things life has to offer, a god that will answer our prayers. Problem is, we just don’t know what to pray for.

Those astonishing conservatives

I guess I’m a little stunned when I hear conservative Republicans being interviewed as their state ramps up for a primary, how they talk about the most important characteristics a candidate might have, their positions on crucial issues like abortion, things like that. I guess what stuns me most is how some of them insist how the party must stick to these core principles if they hope to win, because it worked for them in the past, George Bush’s election and reelection cited as evidence.

Well wait a minute here. In eight years George Bush has run the country into the ground. You’re proud of this guy? Why aren’t you embarrassed, too ashamed to come out of the house, too chagrined to face a microphone?

The values voters in this country are overlooking the most important value of all — a strong democracy. This is a value that should matter to everyone, conservative and liberal alike. We can only ensure this with a chief executive who’s committed to the preservation of our democracy, one who understands all the factors involved in keeping it strong. Abortion, or freedom of choice, is not one of these factors. Neither is gay marriage or guns for everyone. I’m talking more about honoring the Constitution. I’m talking about a quality education for all. I’m talking about a health care system that is blind to everything but a person’s needs. I’m talking about pursuing policies that benefit not only Americans but all people of the world, and the world itself. I’m talking about setting an example that gives our claim as leader of the free world some credibility.