We The People vs Wall Street

"I promise to use every tool at my disposal to see these reforms enacted: to ensure that the bill I sign into law reflects not the special interests of Wall Street, but the best interests of the American people." — President Obama




(The following text is from Organizing For America's Wall Street Reform Info)

President Obama has proposed a series of reforms with two main objectives:

1) Create the strongest consumer protections in history so that Americans always get the information they need to make smart financial decisions

2) Rein in Wall Street abuses, hold the big banks accountable, and ensure that taxpayers never again have to bail them out

Consumer Protections:

To ensure that consumers have the protection they deserve, the President’s plan will consolidate the consumer protections now spread across seven government agencies into one single Consumer Financial Protection Agency. The CFPA will be tasked with preventing predatory practices and making sure consumers get the clear information they deserve before signing for a mortgage, loan, or credit card.

Big banks and credit card companies will be required to provide consumers with clear and transparent terms, ensuring Americans have all the information they need to compare mortgage and credit card rates and make the right financial choices for their families.

The CFPA will be responsible for protecting consumers from unfair and deceptive practices like ballooning mortgage payments or credit card rate hikes.

Consumers will be provided with clear disclosure regarding the consequences of their financial decisions, and clear identification of costs, penalties, and risks.

Reining in Wall Street:
The President’s reforms will guarantee that Americans never again end up holding the bag for the bad decisions and greed-driven policies of big banks and credit card companies – protecting consumers and taxpayers alike. Wall Street reform will protect taxpayers and investors by making the financial system more stable for everyone.

In the recent crisis, millions of American families saw their retirement savings or their children's college funds fall dramatically. The President’s plan will help to make financial markets safer for investors by closing regulatory gaps and loopholes.

Wall Street reform will require tough new rules and greater transparency from investment advisors, financial brokers and hedge funds – holding them accountable while protecting investors and businesses.

The President’s plan will strengthen oversight and aggressively pursue financial fraud, conflicts of interest and manipulation of the system that benefits the special interests at the expense of American families and businesses.

Reform will put in place tough new capital requirements, rigorous standards and supervision to ensure that no financial institution is capable of bringing down the economy, and that taxpayers are never again forced to bail out big banks because they are "too big to fail."



Stand with President Obama on Wall Street Reform: http://www.my.barackobama.com/page/content/wallstreetsignon?source=issuepage

Yes We Can

Democrats vs Chief Justice Roberts

Things have been (rightfully) tense between Democrats and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court since the Court's controversial decision on corporate campaign finance.

Most famously President Obama chastised the Court for its decision during his State of the Union Address. On Tuesday, Roberts responded by saying the scene at President Obama's first State of the Union address was "very
troubling" and that the annual speech to Congress has "degenerated into a
political pep rally."

From Huffington Post:
Roberts said anyone is free to criticize the court and that some have an
obligation to do so because of their positions.

"So I have no problems with that," he said. "On the other hand, there is the
issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum. The image of having the
members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the
Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court – according the
requirements of protocol – has to sit there expressionless, I think is very
troubling."

---

Today Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid hit back with remarks of his own.

Also from Huffington Post:

On Wednesday Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he was "so
disappointed" with the Court's swing vote -- Justice Anthony M. Kennedy -- for
enabling the court's rightward, corporatist tilt. As for Chief Justice John
Roberts, the majority leader castigated him as being out of touch and completely
detached from political reality.

"Do you think John Roberts knows or cares how people get elected?" he said,
referring to the role the chief justice played in crafting the court's Citizens
United decision.


Insisting that the court was engaged in "activism" for allowing corporations
to spend unlimited amounts of money on congressional campaigns, the Nevada
Democrat insisted that the time had come to stop appointing judges to the bench.


"I think we've had enough of them," he said. "I think what we need are people on
that bench who have been legislators, people who are lawyers, people who are
academics. You look at our Supreme Court and all these people, all they know is
working with people in black robes. We have got to change that."
---

President Obama's remarks on the Court's decision during his State of the Union Address


The full article on Chief Robert's comments
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/09/john-roberts-scene-at-oba_n_492444.html

The full article on Senator Reid's comments
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/10/harry-reid-slams-supreme_n_493532.html

To Battle (2010)

(Terry's note: I feel this is the most important message I've posted on the site. I know it is a little long, but please find the time.)


2009 was a crazy year, wasn’t it? It is hard to fathom, but it was only a year ago that the nation stood in united excitement and pride over the popular and historic new president-elect. Despite everything that had happened in 2008; the financial collapse, the two seemingly endless wars, the bitter and heated election season, the country somehow seemed stronger at the end of the year. I don’t think I only feel that way because I supported Barack Obama. I guess I could be naïve, or just wrong, but judging by his high approval and favorability ratings at the time, not to mention just the buzz and excitement that seemed to run through everything that January, I think a large majority of the country was ready to start in a new direction. We were ready for change.

What a difference a year makes. As anyone reading this knows, the honeymoon faded fast, and gave way to one of the most brutal and partisan atmospheres since….well, since George Bush was in office. In political terms, not much has changed. The minority party is entrenched deep in their bunkers, only peering out to throw the occasional verbal grenade or political obstruction. The majority party increasingly leans towards the disposition that due to the moral inferiority of the minority, it is appropriate to turn a deaf ear and leave them out. The lines have been repainted in bright new paint. It is political warfare in America, from the Hill, to the blogs, to the dinner table.

Now here we are at the dawning of a new year, a congressional election year, and pedestrians to pundits have already declared it the “Year of the elephant” (GOP). Us on the left are peering in to 2010 with a mixture of apprehension, anxiety, and even dread. And we probably should be.

2009 saw the resurgence of the Republican party, a party that just at the beginning of that year had been declared dead, somewhat reverently by the media and gleefully by the Democrats. After the train wreck of the Bush years, the divisiveness of Sarah Palin, and the Democratic takeovers of Congress and the White House, the Republicans seemed to be gasping their last breath with no way forward. The very tectonic plates of American culture, race, sexuality, status quo, climate change belief, secularity, and more seemed to be shifting against the Grand Old Party.

As we all know, that is not what has happened. At the beginning of 2010, the Republicans stand stronger (in political terms) than any time since perhaps the 1994 takeover of Congress under the Clinton Administration. While obviously the GOP had significant power under the Bush Administration (especially the first four years), I don’t think they dominated the day to day narrative as much at that time. While there have been reports already of in fighting between the tea parties and the Republican party, and even the tea parties themselves, the conservative doctrine is undeniably receiving a significant boom through it all.

What is interesting, and note worthy for those of us on the other side of the political wrestling ring, is that they did it without any true leadership in the sense of a visionary politician or exciting new candidate. Sure, there was the rise of Glenn Beck. Not only in his smash hit Faux TV show, but also in his best selling books, Beck definitely was a major player in the conservative movement in 09. We have always had these controversial magnetic pundits in politics though, from Buckley to Limbaugh, so that can’t be all there is to it. There was also the Michelle Bachmans in the party who tried to latch themselves on to the tea parties and be perceived as their leader, but I don’t think any of those people are responsible for their current momentum. Also, Sarah Palin undeniably had a good year despite her stepping down from office, which a sane person would see as a setback. Nonetheless, her book has predictably sold like crazy, she had a successful tour off of it, and being in the spotlight another year has, in the twisted world of casual politics, made her appear more credible. (Despite the fact she has done NOTHING of actual substance in said year to bolster credibility).

There are two factors that are attributable to the GOP’s winning year in 2009. The first, (bear with me on this), is the people. It is true that more average people are fired up in the name of conservatism in their everyday lives and interactions in a way that they had previously not been. Some of them are legitimately opposed to the Democrat’s agenda and are feeling far away enough from the Bush years to come out from under their rock. Others have been caught up in a trend, a frenzy, the same way that the Obama campaign had its uninformed, the following the moment fan base. This is inevitable in politics, which is all about grabbing a theme, getting the ball rolling, and attracting uninformed and naïve voters on the sidelines.

There is another side, a darker side, to the so called “grassroots” uprising, namely “special interests”. In the contentious battlefields of health care, cap and trade, and financial reform, untold sums of money are being pumped from interest groups in a full frontal assault on the progressive agenda. The money makers on top have decided it’s not worth reforming and fixing these broken systems if it is going to cost them a few extra dollars off of the next profit report. They are throwing everything they have in to opposing the legislation that is going to better serve the American people.

In short, the swelling of everyday American’s militant conservatism is coming from their blindness to the unseen fat cat forces (or in the case of one particular “news” network, masked force) that is whispering in their ear while simultaneously digging a grave for them. It is amazing the effectiveness these powers have shown at turning low income, working people against the very things being put forth to work on their behalf. I don’t mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but if you don’t believe there are big money interests working on their own behalf alone, out of the public eye, you are either delusional, blind, or naïve.

So what can we on the left do to prepare for the congressional war of 2010? Organize, inform, and motivate, on every possible level. Basically, we have to be involved. Those of us already involved need to recognize we are going to have to push it in to an even higher gear, perhaps by breaking outside of the blogosphere and organizing events and rallies on a local scale. Do work at the schools, parks, and hospitals in affiliation with your local democratic forces (or just start your own).

Those of us with one foot in, on the sidelines but not in the game, reading and being attentive but not personally actively involved, need to dive in the deep end. First and foremost, find yourself as many sources you trust as you can. When you read a news story or opinion article that impacts you, pass it on, through a personal message to a like minded friend or open minded skeptic. Post your finds on your Facebook, Twitter, blog, or Myspace. Use your social networking to direct as many of your peers as you can to being attentive and having a seat at the table. Also, take up conversations on network posts and discussion boards. The more people you bounce your beliefs and ideas off of, the stronger they will be and the more comfortable you will be with crafting a narrative for them. Democracy only works for us if we work for it.

I want to directly address my generation, the people my age, the 18-25 crowd. We have to step up. We have to pull our heads out of the MTV society. Nobody is going to work on our behalf except ourselves, and there are plenty of powers working against us. We are inheriting an unprecedented world, a world of globalization, terrorism, and too big to fail economics. I know plenty of young people who will loudly state their beliefs against war, in favor of gay rights, or for bottom up economics, but very few who are actively participant on a significant scale. In the same way as it is easier to play Guitar Hero than be a rock star, it is easier to boast about your beliefs than it is to inform yourself on them and fight for them. Carving out your political identity and informing yourself is part one, taking your message to others and encouraging them to do the same is part two.

All of us on the left can’t wait around for President Obama to get everything done, for our talk show hosts to beat back every attack, or for others in general to fight all of our battles. Part of the message of President Obama’s election was that we have to take an active role in our politics, government, and in our future. In 2010, we have to summon the same determination and fight that we had just a little over a year ago to support and reinforce our demand for change and progress.

(P.S.- Start now. Pass this message on.)

National Security Under the Obama Administration

President Obama's weekly address. In this address the President talks about the failed Christmas day terrorist attack and national security:



From the Washington Post:

"Critics have set up a straw Obama, a weak and naive leader who allegedly takes terrorism lightly, thinks that playing nicely with terrorists will make them stop, and fails to understand the threat that the United States faces from violent extremists. Mr. Cheney said that the incident had made "clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war." Likewise, Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.) called on Mr. Obama to "recognize that we are at war with a murderous enemy who will not relent because we heed political correctness, acquiesce to international calls for deference or close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay." Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano "and the rest of the Obama administration view their role as law enforcement, first responders dealing with the aftermath of an attack. And we believe in a forward-looking approach to stopping these attacks before they happen."

There are two ways to show how baseless these attacks are: examining Mr. Obama's words and examining his actions.

Words first. "Evil does exist in the world," Mr. Obama said in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. "Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms." In his weekly radio speech Saturday, he disposed of the war-vs.-law-enforcement canard, pointing out that in his inaugural address he made it clear that "0ur nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred and that we will do whatever it takes to defeat them and defend our country, even as we uphold the values that have always distinguished America among nations."

But actions speak louder, and Mr. Obama's actions -- often at the cost of enraging his party's liberal base -- have also demonstrated tenacity and pragmatism blended with a necessary reassessment of the flawed policies of his predecessors and a recommitment to the rule of law. He wants to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, which is all to the good given its stain on the national character, but he has delayed that goal until acceptable alternatives can be found. He has brought criminal charges against some terrorists, but he has also sent others to be tried by military tribunals. He has invoked the authority of the executive to have lawsuits dismissed because they risk exposing state secrets. In addition to the new troop deployments, he has aggressively used predator drones to strike at terrorists, including outside Afghanistan. Even before the failed attack, his administration has been working aggressively with Yemeni authorities to deal with extremists there."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/29/AR2009122903379.html?hpid=topnews


Republicans obviously don't agree.

Also from the Washington Post:

"Since before Obama was sworn into office, Republicans have been building a case that he is weak on national security, and in the wake of the intelligence and security failures that led to last week's incident, they think that narrative might stick. Congressional Republicans and GOP pollsters said they believe the administration's response to the failed attack on a Detroit-bound plane -- along with Obama's decisions on the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the intelligence lapses connected to November's massacre at Fort Hood, Tex. -- damage the Democratic brand.

The nation's economy and health-care reform are sure to be dominant themes. But if the public remains concerned about the safety of air travel and about international terrorism, the Republican attacks on Obama could be "very influential," said Andrew Kohut, a veteran pollster and president of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center.

"I don't know if it has legs, but it certainly has potential if it has legs," Kohut said.

As the GOP seeks a path out of the political abyss in the 2010 elections, its leaders seem to be turning to the issue of terrorism, which worked for them in the 2002 congressional midterms and in President George W. Bush's 2004 reelection.

"They just don't get it," Rep. Peter Hoekstra (Mich.), the ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee, wrote in a fundraising letter for his gubernatorial campaign. "These are the same weak-kneed liberals who have recently tried to bring Guantanamo Bay terrorists right here to Michigan!"

White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod responds:

"They can run on rhetoric," Axelrod said in an interview Tuesday. "We will run on our record when the time comes. . . . The president's record, I think, is very clear and very strong. This president has taken the fight to al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in Somalia, in Yemen. He has focused on the threat in a way that it hasn't been.'"


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/29/AR2009122903379.html?hpid=topnews


President Barack Obama's top counter terrorism adviser, John Brennan, said Sunday that former Vice President Dick Cheney's criticism of the Obama administration's approach to the Christmas Day terror attempt is misinformed or intentionally false.




The White House also hit back on Cheney's remarks with an official statement:

"To put it simply: this President is not interested in bellicose rhetoric, he is focused on action. Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from al Qaeda and succeeded in dividing this country. And it seems strangely off-key now, at a time when our country is under attack, for the architect of those policies to be attacking the President."


The non-partisan Politifact organization gave Cheney's remark their dubious "pants on fire" award.

(here)-
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/jan/03/cheney-claim-obama-earns-pants-fire/

Kill the bill?

The fight for health care has erupted in to total chaos. No one even seems to know what side they are on or what they are fighting for anymore. A growing force on the left is saying the bill has been hijacked by insurance companies and unfairly held hostage by Joe Lieberman, and argues that without the public option or medicare buy-in, the bill doesn't work the same and isn't worth passing.

Keith Olbermann fuming over the current state of health reform. Pleads with Obama to take action:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Howard Dean opposes the current health care bill-

"If I were a senator, I would not vote for the current health-care bill. Any measure that expands private insurers' monopoly over health care and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real health-care reform. Real reform would insert competition into insurance markets, force insurers to cut unnecessary administrative expenses and spend health-care dollars caring for people. Real reform would significantly lower costs, improve the delivery of health care and give all Americans a meaningful choice of coverage. The current Senate bill accomplishes none of these."


Read his full argument-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/16/AR2009121601906.html



White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs hit back on Howard Dean's assessment-

(From the Huffington Post)

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs strongly hit back at former DNC Chairman Howard Dean for criticizing the Senate health care bill, suggesting, at one point, that Dean was being irrational and didn't understand the contents of the legislation.

"I don't know what piece of legislation he is reading," said Gibbs.

"I would ask Dr. Dean, how better do you address those who don't have insurance: passing a bill that will cover 30 million who don't currently have it or killing the bill?" he added. "I don't think any rational person would say killing the bill makes a whole lot of sense at this point."

Asked if Dean was acting irrationally, Gibbs replied: "I can't tell what his motives are, to be honest with you."

(Read more)-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/16/gibbs-lashes-back-at-dean_n_394596.html


Nate Silver's analysis of the current Senate health care proposal. He welcomes criticism of the numbers.




Read how he came up with the numbers here-
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/why-progressives-are-batshit-crazy-to.html


As if health care reform wasn't enough of a war zone already.

The Way Forward in Afghanistan

Sorry, my (most) liberal friends: I support the President's decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Yes, I am aware that we have been there for over eight years. Yes, it is true that al-Qaeda is mainly based in Pakistan. Yes, it is also true that Afghanistan has never been (and can never be) a fully functioning democratic nation state. And yes, our "partners", the Afghanistan government run by Karzai, could not possibly be any more corrupt or worthless.

But no, none of that is reason enough to risk a premature withdraw from the region, if for nothing else but for security's sake. I don't care what Michael Moore says. Afghanistan started as a war of necessity, after the attacks on 9/11 by al-Qadea who were based in Afghanistan at the time. It is true that they might be primarily based in Pakistan now, but they continue to launch attacks and have influence in Afghanistan. If we left now, you can bet they would regain control of the already destabilized region before anybody even knew better.

What I think is interesting is the political fall out of the President's approach. For once, in the first time since the Inauguration, the Republicans are actually vocally standing behind the President and supporting him. (Except for the vampire Dick Cheney who apparently operates on an island of his own).

In contrast, it is now the Democrats losing their heads and grumbling about the next election cycle. That is even after Obama threw the left a bone by announcing a withdraw plan for Afghanistan beginning in 2011 (so for accuracy sake, the plan is a temporary surge followed by a timed withdraw). All I have to say to these Dems, is if the President has a plan to start getting us out of the region in 2011 (which will be about the 10 year mark in the war), why not just let him and the generals have the troops they think they need to do it? Honestly, don't pretend like you know more about strategic military decisions than the people at the top of the chain of command. Remember when Cheney accused Obama of "dithering?" The President spent weeks, almost months, on this decision. It was not made lightly. There were debates and deliberations between some of the sharpest minds of these subjects the entire time. There is something in this plan for both sides. A troop increase for Republicans and a timed withdraw for Democrats. So far there has been a lot bigger of a fuss on the left.

It just goes back to the saying that in politics, when you drive down the middle of the road you get hit by traffic on both sides.

In short, I support the troop increase because I think our attention and focus has been negligent in Afghanistan since pretty much the start of the Iraq war and needs to be made up for. I support the timed withdraw, because we should not be occupying Afghanistan, or trying to turn it in to something it can never be (a fully functioning democratic nation state). And hopefully, as the idea goes, the time line will make not only our only military actions more efficient, but make our partners in the Afghanistan government wake up and actually do something.

So for this blogger, another home run for President Obama.




*EDIT* Next day update: Republicans are suddenly turning against the President's plan in waves. Big surprise.

Democrats Get It Done

I have to say, I am legitimately shocked and impressed. The Dems actually move the ball down the field.

In a way you can neither overstate or understate the importance of this vote. On one hand, yes, it was only a procedural vote that just allows the legislation to enter in to the real debate and actual vote. The Dems will still have to break another Republican filibuster attempt to close the debate. If they can do that, all they need is a simple majority vote (51), which they have easily.

But on the other hand, this is an effort that some critics have labeled dead for months. The Democrat's incompetence and impotence is something of legend. Three Democratic senators were on the fence until today. Republicans were in a full uniformed united effort to filibuster the bill and kill it before it reached the floor and could be debated on. Not a single Republican voted to allow the legislation to even reach the floor.

In the end, the Democrats secured all 58 members of their caucus and brought in both Independent votes to reach the needed 60 votes to break a filibuster. For now at least, our sometimes friend/ sometimes foe Joe Lieberman came through.

Good on you, Joe.




From CNN.com-

"Health care reform backers won a key victory Saturday night as the Senate voted to move ahead with a floor debate on a sweeping $848 billion bill.

The 60-39 vote to prevent a Republican filibuster against the start of debate on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's legislation broke down along strict party lines. All 58 Senate Democrats -- along with independent Sens. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont -- supported bringing the measure to the floor.

Thirty-nine of the 40 Senate Republicans opposed the motion. Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, didn't vote.

"Tonight's historic vote brings us one step closer to ending insurance company abuses, reining in spiraling health care costs, providing stability and security to those with health insurance and extending quality health coverage to those who lack it," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement."

http://shar.es/aiYWc

Nov. 3rd Elections

If you've missed it, the big story in politics right now is the Republicans sweeping hotly contested elections for governor in New Jersey and Virginia. Republicans are, of course, claiming this is a referendum on the entire Obama agenda.


The Huffington Post-

"Conservative Republican Bob McDonnell's victory in the Virginia governor's race over Democrat R. Creigh Deeds and moderate Republican Chris Christie's ouster of unpopular New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine was a double-barreled triumph for a party looking to rebuild after being booted from power in national elections in 2006 and 2008."


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/03/virginia-governors-race-2_n_344576.html

The Republicans won some governor positions. Congratulations. But as to this being a referendum on President Obama?


CBS News-

A majority of voters in both states said they are worried about the direction of the nation’s economy over the next year. 85 percent of Virginia voters said they are worried, as are 90 percent of voters in New Jersey. These percentages were similar on Election Day in 2008.

In both states the economy topped the list of issues that mattered most to voters in their choice for governor – in Virginia health care was second, while in New Jersey the second choice was property taxes.


Still, majorities of voters in both states (55 percent in Virginia and 60 percent in New Jersey) said President Obama was not a factor in their vote today. Those who said Mr. Obama was a factor in New Jersey divided as to whether their vote was a vote for the president (19 percent) or against him (20 percent). In Virginia, slightly fewer voters said their vote was for Mr. Obama (18 percent) than against him (24 percent).


http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/03/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5514455.shtml


Also, in other news, the so called Conservative candidate in the New York congressional race that forced the RNC endorsed Republican candidate out of the race lost to Democrat Bill Owens. The story was significant because after the Republican party officially endorsed the Republican candidate Dierdre Scozzafava, Sarah Palin went rogue and endorsed the Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman (the Conservative candidate was essentially a representative of the tea party factions, as it has been explained). After all the drama, the Democrat won anyway.


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/03/bill-owens-leads-doug-hof_n_344776.html

Democrats Suck Pt. 2

In the last minute, Jon Stewart nails why Democrats are incompetent gutless fools.

Public Option Limited

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Jesus is a Liberal

In the 21st century, many see the Republican Party as the political arm of Christian faith. I find this odd, because I think the Democrats, the party which has historically been more involved in social justice and helping the least among us, are more in line with the teachings of the Bible. Many times in the Bible it says to “love thy neighbor”; a code Republicans tend to forget about if their neighbor is black, poor, or gay.

There is also a passage in the Bible that states “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven”. This philosophy seems to conflict with the Republican message of “Get a lot of money, to hell with everyone else”, or in the case of the majority of already rich Republicans, just “to hell with everyone else”.

Somehow I don’t think Jesus would find “They didn’t work hard enough” or “It’s mine!” a rightful response to people who are poor, sick, or in need. Jesus wouldn’t rationalize living in extreme posh and luxury while others are starving and homeless by saying “I deserve it better”. Jesus wouldn’t let millions get sick, go broke, and die because they have a “pre-existing condition” and can’t pay out of pocket for treatment.

So why is the Republican Party synonymous with Christian morals and belief? A lot of it stems from the issue of abortion. Most Christians are pro-life and for many this single issue dominates their political perception and persuasion. Gay marriage has also been a divisive issue as of late but mainly it comes from Republicans being better at playing the “I’m just like you!” political game. (This was Sarah Palin’s entire resume).

None of this explains how Jesus became Captain Capitalist to rural Republican voters. Many, for some inexplicable reason, think that the Bible advocates free market principles. It doesn’t; and for the record, neither does the constitution. The wide spread belief of both of these myths is actually just a testament to the political powers of Republicans like Karl Rove, a prominent force in the politicization of religion and using it in elections.

The GOP is at its core a political party, not a governing or legislative one. Typically, Republicans fair much better in sound clip wars and television ads than they do in substantive policy debates. The manner and effect in which they have framed the ideological debate, and more so how many people they have got to believe their story, is impressive in political terms. For many in the South and Mid-West, the Republican Party, free market ideals, and Christianity are one in the same while the inner city Democrats are a bunch of elite, godless, out of touch, communist monsters here to destroy America. There irony is that if Jesus was here today and he had a choice between helping the poor, impoverished and sick or supporting big business and their endless quest for higher profit, I know whose side he would be on.

Democrats Suck

Sometimes I can almost connect with the Republican stereotype of trusting your talk show hosts first. Because legislators suck.


Democratic Super Majority

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

Thank you, Jon Stewart


Also, a good one from Stephen Colbert-

Send Your Medical Bills to Max Baucus

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Michael Moore

And this from the Huffington Post-


"An investigation conducted by the Sunlight Foundation and the Center for Responsive Politics found that networks of lobbyist bundlers are funneling money to key members of Congress, including self-appointed health care reform leader Sen. Max Baucus.

Baucus, chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, collected contributions from 37 bundlers -- outside lobbyists who collect contributions from others and direct money to a particular candidate -- representing Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), and 36 others representing drugmaker Amgen, from January 2007 to July 2009.

All together, Baucus received extra donations from 11 major health and insurance firms through 10 or more outside lobbyists, according to the Sunlight Foundation."


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/01/baucus-other-lawmakers-ta_n_306193.html


http://bit.ly/Z14yV

http://www.thedailyshow.com

http://www.colbertnation.com