Moderates Rule

Or we would if we realized that we are the largest voting bloc in the country. A recent Washington Post article talks about this: click here. Interesting that the term 'liberal' has become unpopular, while 'progressive' is acceptable as a self-descriptor. Also interesting that when you change the descriptor terms, the polls show an equal split between left & right in this country. Balance is good, so let's support moderate ideas when they arise.

(Like a public option in health care. A nice, middle-of-the-road compromise between single payer & ...well, whatever it is that the conservatives are suggesting. They've gotten so caught up in the rhetoric of attack that I couldn't tell you what they propose. Sad that their vitriol completely camouflages their ideas...)

SO Last Century

The GOP approval rating is the lowest it has been in a decade. (Click here for CBS article.) The Democrats have majority approval, but just barely. No one is happy with with Congress. The people are clearly mandating the new politics by giving the thumbs-down to the old. Will politicians listen, or will they continue to drag down the country by trying to operate under a last-century mindset? If they do, the voters will say bye-bye.

Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

President Obama won the Nobel Prize for Peace today, less than a year after taking office. It was given in recognition of his fresh vision, one that a few Americans have been loathe to accept ("It's not how we've always DONE it," is the usual refrain) but that has encouraged the rest of the world.

"In less than a year in office, he has transformed the way we look at ourselves and the world we live in and rekindled hope for a world at peace with itself," said IAEA Director General, Mohamad ElBaradei.

I see it as an affirmation of the middle way - the way of political moderates in this country. We have called for balance in both our internal & external politics. Obama shares our vision, and has forged a path that combines idealism with pragmatism.

He has demonstrated to us and to the world that is not weakness to treat others with respect. It is not weakness to listen. It is not weakness to say, "Here we stand. Show us how we can stand together."

His approach is popular with most Americans, despite the shoutings of some whose outdated domination-theory politics brought condemnation from the rest of the world and led us to the brink of ruin. Obama saves us from obsolete 20th century Cold War mentality, and leads us by shaping the politics of the 21st century with its challenges and hope.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the award confirms "America's return to the hearts of the people of the world."

America's brightest destiny is to lead the world in prosperity & hope. Obama's vision can lead us down that path, as the Nobel committee has acknowledged. They said he has "created a new climate in international politics." I am proud of my president and proud of my country.

Shame on Both Sides

The Huffington Post is a liberal alternative to the Drudge Report. I've found that reading both gives an interesting perspective on many issues, if I can make it through the rhetoric that both obligatorily throw in to satiate the bias of their target markets.

Columnist Chris Weigant of Huffington Post made a couple of interesting points on Friday.

First, he spoke of the 2016 Olympic bid, and how some Republicans are hooting about our failure to secure the Chicago bid. His comment: "Republicans are looking more and more like they just want Obama to fail -- no matter what he is attempting. This is not exactly the best way to rebuild the party's appeal among suburban moderate voters."

He is so right. Why gloat over something that was an AMERICAN thing, not an Obama thing? 84% of Americans supported the Olympic bid. Perhaps I am naive (and I probably am) but I don't remember politics of the past being merely about attacking at any cost. Besides, I thought one thing I could count on about Republicans was love of the good ol' USA. When did loyalty to political party become more expedient than loyalty to country?

Another thing Weigant talked about was the current Polanski & Letterman scandals. Many are taking a live-and-let-live approach to these cases of child rape and workplace sexual harassment, and Weigant is indignant. He says, "I never thought I'd see the day when a child rapist was actively defended by anyone...and (Letterman) was applauded by a live audience for admitting essentially what was once the textbook definition of sexual harassment -- the Big Boss preying on a lowly assistant."

I have to admit that, at first, I had a lassez-faire attitude. Maybe it's because I used up all my righteous indignation after the mother of all workplace harassment scandals, Clinton in the White House. Bottom line: Clinton was the biggest of all Big Bosses, and he used his position to elicit sexual favors from a young employee, and then LIED about it. I thought the one thing I could count on about Democrats was to uphold the right of employees to a harassment-free workplace. But NOW and other groups either kept silent or supported him. When did it become OK to look the other way for the sake of political expediency?

Again, when did loyalty to the party line become more important than upholding American ideals?

The Verbiage Looks Nice, But...

My article on bill submission (See: What are his Constitutional Duties?) arose out of a Facebook post where I linked to The Obama Plan - a bulleted list of the health care plan proposed by our President. (It's here, if you're interested.)

It's a quick summary that is easy to understand. I posted the link to assist those who complained that President Obama had been vague about his proposal, and to reassure those who have been confused by the scare tactics permeating the internet and the airwaves. (See Health Care Howls for a discussion of this.)

The response to my post graphically illustrated why we have the current confusion-driven uproar over health care reform. The first reply was: The verbiage looks nice ... but ... where, in reality, is it, other than words on that web page? He's not turned in any legislation to Congress.

Not ONE of the responses I received discussed the merits of the Obama Plan. Instead, the conversation was sidetracked onto issues of WHO had actually written the bills currently under consideration, and WHY the president didn't write one, and WHEN would he start doing things the way they've always been done, etc.

It was such a human response. If we can't find fault with the package, let's find fault with the delivery or the messenger or the crack in the sidewalk. Let's run down a rat hole at all costs, to avoid sitting down at the table and confronting our own fears and prejudices. We ALL - left, middle, right - have this tendency, whether we're talking politics or religion or taxes or anything else that might make us lose sleep in the night.

It's an argument born out of fear. But fear prevents informed thinking. An ignorance-driven decision process is no process at all. We must quit fanning the flames of our - and our opponent's - fears. We need to sit down, in compassion and civility, and talk about the ISSUES.

What are his Constitutional duties?

A conservative friend of mine recently expressed dismay that President Obama hasn't submitted his own bills to Congress for consideration, relying instead upon Congress to write bills. He said,

"Every President before him has sent bills to the Hill, including the annual budget. Obama didn't. Granted, there have been years when a President's budget was considered DOA as the Congress was controlled by a contrary party ... but still, they've submitted one."

This brings up a good question: why isn't our President doing it the way it's always been done? And IS this the way it's always been done?

I decided to go back to the Rule Book - the Constitution of the United States of America. I looked up the responsibilities of the President. The Constitution says, "He shall from time to time....recommend to Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

It doesn't seem to say that the President should pen detailed bills. It sounds like our founding fathers expected the Executive Branch to propose issues and ideas for the Legislative Branch to consider and flesh out.

It might help to clarify this by looking at the responsibilities of the Congress.

The constitution says, All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States. Among its duties: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

In other words, legislative powers rest in Congress, not in the Presidency. But wouldn't it be nice if the President made their job easier by writing a bill himself?

I would argue that this is - and has been - a colossal waste of taxpayer money. I do not want the executive branch spending time doing the work of the legislative branch - they have their own Constitutional tasks. Besides, as my friend noted, many former President's bills are dead on arrival. Why would I, as a taxpayer, want man hours (and money) spent on something that has no chance of success?

Doesn't it make more sense for the legislature to write the laws? Our beloved 16th president, Abraham Lincoln, believed this. He agreed with the Whig theory of the presidency, in which it was the responsibility of Congress to write the laws. Our first president, George Washington, wrote no bills. So it appears that 'every President' has NOT submitted detailed bills to Congress - in fact, some were philosophically opposed to the idea.

It is the opinion of this humble moderate that Abraham Lincoln & George Washington are better role models than George Bush & Bill Clinton.

Let each branch of government do their own job, as envisioned by the Constitution.

Health Care Howls

The furor over health care stuns me. As a micro-business owner who must forage for her own insurance, I am brutalized by impossible standards for insurability and by premium increases which equaled 50% over the past year-and-a-half. And I am a healthy individual with no ongoing issues, just the normal bumps and bruises. I can only imagine the heartache of those unlucky enough to suffer with ongoing treatment needs due to injury or illness. How can my fellow Americans NOT see the need for reform?

Where is the support from moderate America? It’s partly WHY we voted for Obama, because he promised to champion health care reform when he ran for election. And what is currently proposed is even milder than what he put forward back then. Where is the majority in the middle?

I believe that many of us do agree with the president but are being too quiet about our support, while others are allowing their fears to be stirred by the loud, angry voices of politicos who are not motivated by a desire for our country’s greatest good. Their refrain is fueled by their obsession for riding the wild horse of political power and fanned by their rage at losing those reins, which were ripped from their hands by a public who had had enough of war without sound strategy and economic policies that were rapidly leading our country to ruin.

We must remember that many of the people stirring the pot today are entertainment figures - shock jocks who have basically the same job as Howard Stern, only with more political content. For example, Rush Limbaugh has for years described himself as an entertainer, but people insist on listening to him as though he were a prophet. They forget that if he doesn’t have controversy, he doesn’t have a show. He understands this and admits it, which leaves us no excuse for not understanding and admitting it, too.

We need to ignore these voices. To understand and appreciate what the president intends, we should listen to him with our own ears. We should watch his speeches with our own eyes, so we can judge for ourselves his strategies and plans. And I believe by so doing we can be comforted and encouraged, because his ideas are sound.

Remember, we believed in him 10 months ago. He is the same person today. We can still believe. We must be vocal in our support.