Is partisanship making America better?

Red state, blue state divide: One party will never rule!

"Despite Democratic promises that the House Rules Committee would operate much differently in the new majority, it is as partisan as ever," writes the Hill.

"Furious with how the powerful panel has been directed this year, all four Republican members of the Rules Committee took to the floor Tuesday night to air their grievances publicly."

Wow! Who woulda thunk partisanship wouldn't stop just because Democrats took office?

The partisanship between the left and right hasn't abated in decades. Each side wants to rule America supremely and, therefore, constantly seeks to tarnish the image of the other side, even at the expense of needed legislation. And, every piece of legislation that does pass is riddled with earmarks, pork and other special projects - costing average American taxpayers billions and billions of dollars.

Of course, whom can blame them?

Average, centrist America has let the radical right and left control both major parties. Thus, average Americans continue to get screwed by Congress and the White House, and nothing is going to change that until America Votes out all Incumbents, or both parties begin to realize that their job is constructive consensus, not violent partisanship.

Is partisanship a necessary evil in politics or the sign of a dysfunctional political system?

Bloomberg blasts Presidential debates, partisanship

Is partisanship destroying America?

NY City mayor, Michael Bloomberg, blasted the Presidential debates and the U.S. press yesterday at Google's headquarters.

"They have absolutely nothing to do with the job and the qualifications. And they don't tell you anything about whether or not any of those candidates would be good or bad presidents. What they really say is, did they memorize their notes of ‘What to say if …' and whether their staff was able to anticipate," the mayor said. "If you look at both debates, they pandered, what I would argue, the same ways."

In addition, Bloomberg had strong words about Washington's addiction to partisanship.

" Washington is sinking into a swamp of dysfunction….We're talking about a serious and harmful addiction here," Mr. Bloomberg was to tell attendees at an opening session last night, according to a prepared text released by his office. "Unfortunately, there's no ‘Promises' clinic for partisanship."

(New York Sun)

Pelosi to break almost 200 year old procedure?

First change to the germaneness rule since 1822

According to the Drudgereport, "After losing a string of embarrassing votes on the House floor because of procedural maneuvering, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has decided to change the current House Rules to completely shut down the floor to the minority.

The Democratic Leadership is threatening to change the current House Rules regarding the Republican right to the Motion to Recommit or the test of germaneness on the motion to recommit."

So, would such a move end partisanship and enable Congress to accomplish something? Or, would such a move create more partisanship and lead to an even less productive Congress?

Bush more popular than Congress?!?!

Bush testing out a plug-in hybrid vehicle

George Bush is unpopular. That's no secret. According to the most recent Gallup Poll, Bush's approval rating is holding steady at about 33 percent. This low approval rating led many to believe that the unpopular President helped lead to a Democrat-controlled Congress.

But is that the real story?

According to the same Gallup poll, Congress has an approval rating of just 29 percent. Congress is even less popular than the President?

I think Democrats better wake up, as better Republicans. Ultimately, Democrats probably won control of Congress simply because they weren't Republicans - that's it. It was a vote for change that gave Democrats control of Congress.

Yet, has anything really changed? Certainly, the gross, unproductive partisanship of Congress has not changed, and nothing is being accomplished. Even worse, it is possible that essentially nothing will be accomplished until early 2008 - at best.

Perhaps in 2008, when America again votes for change, it shouldn't be limited to replacing Democrats with Republicans or vice versa. Instead, perhaps EVERY incumbent should be replaced?! Perhaps EVERY incumbent should be replaced with an Independent candidate?

Now that would be a change. Seriously, could it get any worse? When the best that is accomplished is, well, nothing, can it really get any worse?

Register to vote. Take a stand for change in 2008.

Hillary or Obama: A vote for change?

Either a woman or a black man is a big change

There's an interesting article in the TimesOnline about Republicans that are converting to Democrats to support Barack Obama's run for President. Why? Because these converts believe Obama could unite the country.

“I think we should design campaigns that appeal, not to 51% of the people, but bring the country together as a whole,” said Matthew Dowd, President Bush's Chief Campaign Strategist in 2004. And, apparently, Dowd believes Obama has the best chance of achieving that end.

Could a politician actually unite the country these days, especially one coming from one of the major parties - both of which seem to relish campaign-funding partisanship? I hope so.

Even better, I hope these different candidates (not rich white males) can get more Americans to register to vote and, more important, to vote.

And if you don't like either of these candidates, then get out and vote for your candidate. And, if you don't like any of the candidates, then vote for a third party candidate - that's a better vote for change than not voting at all.

So, register to vote. If the far majority of eligible voters start voting and keep voting, then politicians will have to listen to the people, rather than the lobbyist controlled two party political system.

Foreign oil dependence, flex-fuel lies, and hybrid vehicle tax credits: Is Congress failing America?

"A public advocacy group on Thursday said Ford Motor Co. has avoided as much as $135 million in fines by marketing vehicles that are supposed to run on the gas-ethanol mix E85 that don't work and accused the company of running misleading ads." (more)

Moreover, aside from the obvious, the fact is that for years the majority of flex-fuel vehicles sold by both Ford and GM have not ever filled up with E-85. Yet, each company has avoided millions and and millions in fines by selling these vehicles.

"Public Citizen and other environmental advocacy groups have long complained that automakers get credits to meet federal fuel economy regulations by building flexible-fuel vehicles that are hardly ever filled with E85, since it's available at just 900 of the country's 170,000 pumps."

So, Congress gives small business owners huge tax incentives to buy the worst gas-guzzlers, provides huge tax incentives to oil companies, enables the big three to avoid 100's of millions of dollars in fines for violating fuel economy regulations - increasing our foreign oil dependency, and limits tax credits for Toyota hybrid vehicles because they are too successful.

That sure sounds like the right path towards achieving energy independence.

Even the President says hybrids are possibly the most important way to change consumer behavior. Yet, Congress hasn't passed proposed legislation to provide small business tax incentives for buying hybrid cars or other fuel efficient vehicles, nor has Congress passed proposed legislation to extend hybrid vehicle tax credits.

Good work, ladies and gentlemen!

We live in a country that blames the President for quite a lot these days. Fair enough. Let's extend at least as much blame to the current - do nothing, partisanship is more important - Congress.

Flex fuel lies, foreign oil dependency and hybrid vehicle tax credits - Congress is failing America.

If you hate Democrats, Read This!!!!!

So, you don't care about half the voters in America? You don't care about another 40 - 50% of Americans that don't even vote?

You only care about those people that think just like you? Everyone else is the enemy?

Is that the best Democracy has to offer?

If we can't understand those in America that disagree with us, how are we going to understand those throughout the world that disagree with us?

Is the Republican Party more important than the people?

If Democracy is nothing more than partisanship in the name of power, then I say _uck Democracy.

Nothing is more important than the people, the people ARE the democracy. Anybody whom believes in Democracy should be focused on one thing and one thing only, getting at least 90 percent of the people to vote - anything less ISN'T Democracy.

Like it or not, the people ARE more important than the party.

How can a democracy exist when non-voters represent the majority?

_UCK BOTH PARTIES!

If you hate Republicans, Read this!

So, you don't care about half the voters in America? You don't care about another 40 - 50% of Americans that don't even vote?

You only care about those people that think just like you? Everyone else is the enemy?

Is that the best Democracy has to offer?

If we can't understand those in America that disagree with us, how are we going to understand those throughout the world that disagree with us?

Is the Democratic Party more important than the people?

If Democracy is nothing more than partisanship in the name of power, then I say _uck Democracy.

Nothing is more important than the people, the people ARE the democracy. Anybody whom believes in Democracy should be focused on one thing and one thing only, getting at least 90 percent of the people to vote - anything less ISN'T Democracy.

Like it or not, the people ARE more important than the party.

How can a democracy exist when non-voters represent the majority?

_UCK BOTH PARTIES!

Are you an angry voter? Planning to vote against incumbents?

A new poll suggests that the majority of Americans are angry about how the country is being run and they plan to vote against incumbents (more).

Are you an angry voter? Why?

I'm an angry voter. Of course, since both sides of the aisle have decided to make partisanship their main platform, is it really surprising that nothing good is coming out of Congress?

While I'm totally for voting against incumbents, I do believe that little will change without a higher American voter turnout. Moreover, I think we shouldn't just vote against incumbents, we should vote for outsiders.

I say forget the career politicians. I say forget the die-hard Republicans AND Democrats.

A vote for change requires real change - a completely new voice, a completely new platform.

Rate your incumbent anger!

Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House: Let's hope not

If Democrats take back control of Congress, then Nancy Pelosi will probably be the Speaker of the House. Will that be good for America?

Before we answer that question, let's discuss two issues.

First, what is the essence of Democracy? Is it one person one vote? If so, why does that mean anything? Isn't it really that Democracy, at its best, leads to consensus? That's why one person, one vote is so important, because consensus makes it hard for one person, one party, one way of thinking to dominate all aspects of American political life?

Let's face it, very rarely, if ever, does one person, one way of thinking, offer the answers to everything.

Second, so social security is in PERFECT shape? Every single person alive today has NOTHING to worry about when it comes to social security? When we all retire, we will all EASILY be able to live off of social security, right?

I ask the second question, because that is what Nancy Pelosi forced all Democrats to agree upon when George Bush said social security was flawed.

So, why do you then have a pension plan, a 401k plan? Why do Democrat-controlled Unions demand such great health care and pension plans for members if social security is so PERFECT?

In reality, relying on social security in retirement will lead to only one thing for most Americans: the poor house.

The truth is, social security is VERY flawed. Those of us in our 20s, 30s and 40s will almost certainly face serious shortages when it comes to social security. Yet, Nancy tells us there is NO problem.

Why?

Because George Bush, vis-a-vis Republicans, must fail at everything so that Democrats can control America's Democracy. Partisanship, not consensus, rules the world of Nancy Pelosi and the leaders of the Democrat Party. Unfortunately, partisanship also rules the world of the Republican Party.

Both parties are far more focused on raising money and on fighting the other side, than on consensus - the essence of Democracy.

Of course, multi-millionaires, such as Mrs. Pelosi and many other members of Congress, don't have to worry about social security - EVER.

Instead, they worry about POWER and the CONTROL of America's Democracy.

George Bush has not been a great President, but Congress - on both sides of the aisle - has been just as bad, if not worse.

America is a divided country. We speak different languages, we practice different forms of religion or no religion, and we have different political views on many different issues. This isn't bad, this is good. The opposite is the Taliban, it's facist Germany.

Why can't Mrs. Pelosi and the leaders of both parties respect these differing views? Why do they act more like facists than leaders of Democracy?

What happens if Mrs. Pelosi wins the role of Speaker, but accomplishes nothing because of extreme partisanship? Sure there is room for the likes of Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Tom Delay in politics, but on the fringes of the party, not in a leadership role.

Ultimately, in order for a divided America to achieve great things, concensus will be required.

E85 and Hybrid Cars: Hollywood, Democrats and Republicans

I just finished replying to a CNN Commentary by Robert Redford on Kicking the Oil Habit. Lately, the idea of kicking the oil habit has become a hot topic, but there is growing partisan spin using this platform for political gain. I find this unacceptable. Ultimately, both parties have enabled America's oil addiction, and most Americans have happily helped. Lately the favorite buzzword of many politicians has become E85 or ethanol. Yet, far too many scientists note that ethanol will never end America's oil addiction, nor even foreign oil dependency, if we don't move towards significantly more fuel efficient vehicles, such as hybrid cars. Yet, it seems that not only are politicians misguided, but even cultural leaders, such as Robert Redford, whom are too focused on partisanship, rather than real leadership and solutions for such a serious issue. (Full Story)