Tag Archives: partisan

Nonpartisanship – Republican Style

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service recently authored a report to examine the potential effects of tax policy on the economy. Senate Republicans, apparently not happy with the results of the research, successfully pressured the CRS to bury the report.  The issue?

The nonpartisan CRS study found that lowering tax rates on the wealthy had no discernible effect on increasing economic growth or improving economic conditions in the U.S.  In other words…the CRS found that “trickle-down” economics is complete bullshit.  Senate Republicans, finding the report completely undermines the entire tax philosophy of their party, strenuously objected to the report content and pressured for the report to be withdrawn.

Such is life in the Republican Party.  Find a poll you don’t agree with?  You simply don’t believe the poll, and start denigrating the poll’s maker.  Don’t agree with the science of climate change?  You start attacking the science and the scientists who produce it.  Don’t like a nonpartisan report on tax policy?  You try to bury it, before the facts come out and the public sees yet more evidence that your entire party is built on a host of lies. 

THIS is the government under Republican “leadership”.  Facts?  Facts be damned, Republican Party ideology, no matter how freaking twisted it is, is the overarching concern.  So why not a Romney as president, Republicans?  You’ve already shown yourselves to be a deceitful twisted bunch.  Having Romney as president?  He’ll fit right in with this bunch.

Pathetic.  It has to be awfully damned embarrassing to be a Republican right now.

Wonderful Editorial by Retiring Olympia Snowe

Olympia Snowe

Senator Snowe...I couldn't have said it better myself.

If you get a chance, read Olympia Snowe’s opinion piece in the Washington Post on her reasons for retiring from the Senate.  Is it any wonder Congressional approval sits at 11%?  Even those WITHIN Congress are disgusted with what’s become of Congressional politics. 

Rush Limbaugh (my, am I picking on him a bit lately?) said that losing Snowe was no big loss for Republicans.  Of course he would say that.  Snowe is moderate, someone who has angered her own party on more than one occasion.  In the “new” world of American politics, that just won’t do!  In the Limbaugh world of politics, there IS no compromise with the “enemy”.  There IS no going against the party. 

As Snowe states so beautifully, it’s going to take a lot for the current paradigm in Congress to change.  It’s going to take something of a revolution, if you will, from American voters.  But at present, American voters are just as polarized as American politicians.  Look at the current GOP presidential race, where candidates are stumbling all over themselves to see who can sound the most “severely” conservative.  It’s not exactly a recipe for change in Washington. 

Obama went to Washington on the motto of “change”.  He vowed to bridge the divide between Republicans and Democrats.  It sounded good.  It hasn’t happened.  There simply isn’t one man, even the President, who is capable of changing the tenor of Washington politics.  What’s bound Americans together in the past, what’s brought out the best in them, has been crisis.  Is THAT what it’s going to take to change Washington?  Some unforeseen crisis?

America: Home of “Political Bigotry”

Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh, father of American "Political Bigotry".

Few things bother me more than bigotry.  When people think of bigotry, what  typically comes to mind is racism or homophobia, or, as I’ve noted in recent posts, bigotry based on religious belief.   I think we have a relatively “new” form of bigotry that is perhaps as equally destructive…”political bigotry”.

Politics has always had a nasty side.  But in my lifetime (I’m 45), is there any question that basic civility in politics has been in decline?   The current GOP has adopted intolerance of Democrats to the point that it’s seemingly their only party platform, as the party of “no” seemingly is incapable of coming up with a coherent strategy for governing other than opposing ANYTHING proposed or done by Democrats.  Partisanship obviously isn’t unique to the GOP, as Democrats are sometimes just as guilty (although they haven’t honed inter-party hatred to the fine edge that the GOP has).   But…

During my lifetime, and from my personal perception, it seems that start of the decline in civility was during the Clinton years.  In Congress you had Newt Gingrich and fellow Republicans hell-bent on trying to personally destroy the Clinton administration.  On the airwaves, Rush Limbaugh started the now well-established tradition for talking heads to whip up hatred towards Democrats and liberals.  Over time, the pure HATRED towards other political groups has led to two parties that refuse to cooperate on even the most basic and uncontroversial pieces of legislation.  Gridlock is now the standard in American politics, where every piece of legislation is considered more for the political implications and the next election, rather than on its merits for improving the lives of Americans. 

What bothers me the most, however, is how inter-party battles have spilled over into the American mainstream.   The ridiculous battles, the COMPLETE lack of civility now seen in American politics has spilled over into the lives of everyday Americans, and how we treat each other.   Inter-party battles between the GOP and Democrats, the pure HATRED being spouted on the airwaves on completely one-sided political shows, have infiltrated the lives of Americans to such a degree that the American people themselves are seemingly at war with each other.

America has become a place where “political bigotry” has defined us just as much as has discrimination based on race, religion, or sexual preference. 

Given an individual person’s religion, place of work, and background, the people we associate with often DO have similar political beliefs.  Just because of where you end up in life, chances are that for many of us, our friends and colleagues, overall, are more likely to have political beliefs similar to your own.  That’s the case for me.  Despite being in a very “red” state, most of my friends and colleagues are relatively liberal, just because of my background and where I work.   However, I also have friends and colleagues who have very different political beliefs, and we’ve managed to remain friends and colleagues without killing each other.

It seems, however, that for an increasing number of Americans, that simply isn’t an option.  Given all the pure hatred that has infiltrated American politics (and again, Repubs, sorry, you get most of the blame here), for substantial numbers of Americans, simple CIVILITY towards someone from the “other” party isn’t an option. 

Look at how Republicans use the term “liberal” as if it’s an insult, hurled with as much venom at another human being as someone might use a traditional curse word.  If someone sits around and listens to a Rush Limbaugh for day after day, week after week, year after year, is it any wonder how indoctrinated many in the general public have become in treating the “other” party as the enemy?   It’s to the point where a person’s political beliefs are EVERY BIT as much of a grounds for bigotry, for hateful or discriminatory treatment, as other characteristics that make people different. 

The same lack of civility, the same lack of cooperation that’s seen in Congress or during any American election is now a part of many Americans’ daily lives.  We’ve become a country where one group no longer considers the other real “Americans”, simply due to political persuasion.   It’s an ugly trend.  Despite what some would have you believe (Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, or ANYONE on Fox “News” come to mind), you CAN disagree with someone and still treat them with civility.

SOTU – Polarized, Gridlock

State of the Union - Standard Speech

My proposed template for all future State-of-the-Union speeches, and opposition party responses.

Last night, as our POTUS gave the SOTU with the FLOTUS and SCOTUS present, a few thoughts crossed my mind.  First…The State of the Union address happens once a year.  I’m not sure it’s THAT common of a concept in most people’s minds that they see “SOTU” in the headlines and realize what the hell the story is going to talk about.  Hey, I work for the government.  We’re acronym loonies.  But enough with the SOTU headlines, just freakin’ spell it out.

My second thought was…is a speech like this REALLY focusing on the “State of the Union”?  Or, is it more a political stump speech for the next election?  It’s ALWAYS the latter more than the former, but even more so in an election year.  I couldn’t stomach either the speech itself for very long, or the Mitch Daniels GOP “response”.

What bugs the hell out of me…why does there NEED to be a “response” from the “other” party after a State of the Union address?   For an event that’s supposed to bring Americans together to focus on the primary issues affecting or nation, why instead has it become an event that even further strengthens the intense polarization that typifies American politics?  In the State of the Union, the President at least has to give SOME appearance that he’s outlining a path forward for our country, that Americans as a whole need to come together to solve our problems.  For the “other” party response?  As with other opposition party responses in the past, Mitch Daniels might as well have just issued a short statement…”Obama sucks, vote Republican in November”.

Not exactly a Lou Holtz type of speech to motivate the team.  The State of the Union evening has become just one more night of campaigning for both Democrats and Republicans.  There is no attempt from either side to realistically discuss bridging the gaps between the “two” sides.  Because of course, there ARE just two types of Americans…Democrats, and Republicans, an oil-and-water combo that can NEVER mix.  Instead of a night that uplifts the spirits of the American people, where we discuss our Nation’s accomplishments and path forward, it’s become a depressing night where each side tries to out-do each other in blaming the other, where the state-of-the-union is NEVER good, and it’s ALWAYS the other party’s fault for CAUSING such a sucky state of affairs.

The thunderous applause for Gabrielle Giffords was a nice moment.  That’s about what it takes for Democrats or Republicans to work together or even talk to each other…a near-death experience.  Even that isn’t above the depressing political rhetoric though, given the AMPLE stories this week from John Boehner and others, touting the chances of Republicans taking the seat from Giffords in an upcoming special election. 

I propose we replace the State of the Union speech and response with a simple press release.  “State of the Union – Gridlock in Washington, Political Partisanship Increasing – Public Following Politicians’ Example and Becoming More Polarized”.   Three little phrases, phrases that for all intents and purposes, provide the same message as  provided by the president’s State of the Union speech and the opposition party’s response.   We’d save millions in taxpayer $$$$, as the same wording, the same press release materials, could be distributed year, after year, after year, regardless of who sits in the Oval Office.  A depressing message to be reiterated every year, sure…but no more depressing than watching the current slate of speeches on State of the Union night.