Kirsten's musings...

Worried about our two-party system

I received a bright yellow envelope in the mail the other day that looked like it could either be important or it could be junk mail.  The first line in the return address was 2009 Obama Agenda Survey, so I thought I'd take a look.  I didn't notice the second line, which was Republican National Committee, but I did notice the big elephant logo on the letter inside.  Yes, my friends, the Republicans seem to think that I'm someone that they can count on to give them money to fight big bad President Obama.  I laughed out loud as I read the poorly constructed four-page letter from chairman Michael Steele.  He apparently talks in bullet-points, as there isn't a paragraph with more than two sentences in it.  For example:

"You know that th eliberal media elites and the Obama-Democrats are hoping you will put this letter down right now and do nothing...

...They want you to give up, desert your Party and walk away from your conservative principles."

"I want you to know that the Republican Party is not dead and we are not going away.  Our ideals remain sound and our goals remain worthy."

Some of the questions on the survey:

2.  Do you believe that the federal government has gone too far in bailing our failing banks, insurance companies and the auto industry?

Ummmm...seems to me that Bush did most of this.

4.  Should English be the official language of the United States?

While I do believe that people who immigrate here should learn to speak English I see no need to make it the official language.

7.  Do you believe that Barack Obama's nominees for federal courts should be immediately and unquestionably approved for their lifetime appointments by the U.S. Senate?

Hey, just because you don't know how to vet your candidates don't assume we don't vet ours.

11.  Are you confident that new medicines and medical treatments will continue to be developed if the federal government controls prescription drug prices and sets profit margins for research and pharmaceutical companies?

Let me see if I have this right.  You're against government interference if it impacts profits, but have no problem interfering with the useful tools provided by stem-cell research?  Make up your mind.

13.  Are you in favor of reinstituting the military draft, as Democrats in Congress have proposed?

Really?  Democrats proposing bringing back the draft?  [citation needed]

It's no wonder I haven't voted for a Republican Presidential candidate since I was a naive 18-year-old girl.

"Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too."

Not just one of many funny quotes from "Caddyshack" but a harsh reality.  There are plenty of low-paying back-breaking jobs that have to be done by someone.  These people don't make a great living and probably don't have employer-subsidized health insurance.  Republicans think that everyone should be able to make his own way in this world and pay for everything they need, but in some cases that just isn't possible.  Make that a lot of cases.

I read somewhere that Republicans want to run this country like a business, they're just annoyed that they can't simply fire poor people.

Is it just me?

Is it just me, or is the Republican view of "less government involvement" just a little naive?  In all fairness, if everyone was working toward the same goal it would be a fine idea, but that isn't the case.  If executives were paid reasonable salaries, if bosses treated employees fairly, if shareholders were happy with modest gains, then I'd be all for less goverment.  However, news from the banking, mortgage lending, insurance and power companies have showed us time and time again that without regulations greed rises to the top and destroys companies and it destroys people.

Is it just me?

Okay...my apologies.  Salty language ahead.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?

Sorry about that, but I just heard something that pissed me off more than I have been in recent memory.  A radio ad paid for by the "Reject R-71" group.  For those who don't live in Washington, here's a recap:

Washington Referendum 71 is an effort launched by the Washington Values Alliance to overturn Senate Bill 5688 through the veto referendum process. SB 5688 grants state registered domestic partners in Washington all rights, responsibilities, and obligations granted by or imposed by state law on married couples.

A "YES" vote approves SB 5688 grants state registered domestic partners in Washington all rights, responsibilities, and obligations granted by or imposed by state law on married couples. A "NO" vote rejects SB 5688.


No surprise here.  The so-called "Defense of Marriage" folks are trying to deny same-sex couples the same rights that they enjoy.  Nothing more, nothing less.  What got me all riled up was the message of the ad.  It's one woman trying to convince her friend to reject this referendum.  Her reasoning?  There are so many other problems in the state - budget shortfalls, people losing jobs and homes - that the lawmakers shouldn't be have to deal with such a trivial matter as same-sex partnerships.  So let me see if I got this right.  You want to punish same-sex couples by taking away rights that they've already been granted because they made lawmakers deal with a referendum proposed by a citizen's group?  If you were really concerned that lawmakers' time was being wasted maybe you should take it out on the group that proposed the referendum, the Washington Values Alliance.

Unbelievable.

Washington Referendum 71

Is it just me?

Is it just me or do people need to calm down and take a deep breath before spouting off about the proposed health care bill?  I'm constantly amazed at the people who are vehemently opposed to the idea of offering lower-cost health care to those who cannot afford public insurance.  The health insurance industry has to be one of the most corrupt industries in the country that has one of the most powerful lobbyist groups in the country.  I swear I want to make all of these people read John Grisham's "The Rainmaker" before they can utter any more nonsense.  I understand that the book is a piece of fiction, but I'm certain that some Insurance CEO somewhere thought to himself, "Hey, that's not a bad idea."

According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the United States is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage (i.e. some kind of insurance)."  We have fallen far behind other nations that provide coverage to all their citizens and still deliver better quality care at lower cost. We desperately need to catch up before health care costs threaten to destroy us. America spends more on health care than any other country, yet in 2004 we ranked 26th in life expectancy and 32nd in infant mortality.  JSOnline

Lynn Jenkins (R-KS) told a 27-year-old single mother that she'd rather give subsidies to families to allow them to buy private insurance.  YouTube clip Umm...why?  Why should she be limited to purchasing insurance from a private insurance company?  What if there were a low-cost government option that she could afford instead?  Instead of paying her to pay an insurance company, she'd be paying the government.  Seems like a no-brainer to me.

The other argument I hear is that giving people the option of selecting a cheaper government policy over a public policy might put the private insurance companies out of business.  Seems to me that it might force the private insurers to rethink their business practices and make themselves competitive.  They can start by not paying their CEO's multi-million dollar salaries plus bonuses.  I guarantee that everyone in America is NOT going to want to switch to a government policy.

Of course the biggest change that needs to happen is an overhaul of the malpractice system.  That would help doctors, patients, insurance companies, just about everyone.  If some of the most frivolous lawsuits could be stopped before they ever got started, it might make this whole argument moot.

Is it just me? the series...

I seem to be having a lot of these "Is it just me?" moments lately, this is the latest one.  Is it just me, or do the Republicans need to take a closer look at their priorities?  If you talk to just about any Republican these days they are having an absolute fit about the debt that their children and grand-children are going to inherit*.  That's a fair point, and not one that should be ignored.  But these same Republicans think nothing of leaving their children and grand-children with spoiled areas of nature to set up oil-drilling rigs or with diseases that might be cured through the use of stem-cell research.  It's the "pick and choose" mentality that just drives me crazy.

*Of course when President Bush created a huge debt for the war in Iraq, that was okay.  I'm just sayin'.

Political Differences

Big & Rich (Kenny Alphin and John Rich) is a country act that is the definition of 'Mutt & Jeff.'  They are different in just about every way you could think of.

Kenny is tall, John is short.
Kenny is blond, John is brunet.
Kenny is usually clean-shaven, John has a serious mustache.
Kenny is married, John is...oops...John just got married.  Okay, now they have one thing in common.

The biggest difference that I've noticed is that Kenny is a loyal Democrat while John is an ardent Republican.  If you watched any part of the Republican National Convention you probably heard his song "Raising McCain."

I watched a show recently that highlighted what each of these men has been doing recently.  John put out a solo album which included a song he wrote called, "Shutting Detroit Down," railing against the politicians that weren't sending enough money to the "Big 3" to help the workers, while Kenny was working with a charity in Sudan, helping the people who are targets of the genocide that is happening there.  It struck me that this is an interesting example of something bigger - the differences between Republicans and Democrats.

John wrote a song to try and get more money for the rich, white CEOs of Detroit automakers who ran those companies into the ground that MIGHT make its way to the workers, while Kenny actually got his hands dirty trying to help people get things like food and clothing.

Just my observations.  Feel free to disagree.  That's what makes this country great.

This is why I hate politics

A recent quote from the Republican Party, courtesy of Patrick McHenry (R-NC) from the House of Representatives (through his spokesperson):

"We will lose on legislation. But we will win the message war every day, and every week, until November 2010.  Our goal is to bring down approval numbers for [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and for House Democrats. That will take repetition. This is a marathon, not a sprint."

So they admit that they are purposefully blocking legislation that could get this country back on its feet so that they can attempt to make a better showing in the mid-term elections?  This may be worse than the pundits who openly claim that they want President Obama to fail.

Look, I know that this happens on both sides of the political fence, but there is a time and a place for this kind of hard-core partisanship.  When the country is in the middle of a crisis of any kind is not the time.  To borrow from Keith Olbermann, can you imagine if someone on the left stated that they wanted to bring down approval numbers for a Republican leader right after 9/11 so they could win those mid-term elections?  They'd be burned at the proverbial stake.

We'll be making a donation to the Obama fund this afternoon, just to piss these guys off.  Maybe I'll make it in his name.

Really?!?

Driving down the road the other day I saw a pickup truck with an "Impeach Obama" bumper sticker on it.  Presumably the driver was a Republican, which means he supports a President who (a) tried to dismantle the Bill of Rights, (b) is quite possibly going to be tried by the U.N. for war crimes and (c) has the lowest approval rating in recent history.  And you want to impeach President Obama less than a week into his presidency?  Get a life...and a brain while you're at it.

Inaugural address error

Don't get me wrong - I am beyond excited about the prospect of an Obama presidency.  I think he's just what this country needs to get back on its feet again.  I just noticed a small factual error in his speech.  President Obama identified himself as the 44th man to take the oath of office, but in fact he's only the 43rd man to take it.  Grover Cleveland was both the 22nd and 24th President of the United States of America, so he took it on two separate occasions.