Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
Politics is sometimes a brutish and nasty game. At least it's supposed to be, when both sides actually fight for their positions. Unfortunately, this doesn't always happen. Sometimes vacations get in the way.
This just in from the campaign trail: more proof that Republicans "just don't get it" about the concerns of ordinary Americans over health care.
Mike Huckabee is getting a lot of media attention these days because of his dramatic rise in the Iowa polls. But I was personally stunned last night to see him say the following (from PBS' "The News Hour With Jim Lehrer"):
If you think that Medicare is expensive now, wait until 10,000 aging hippies a day find out they can get free drugs. Then, it's really going to get expensive in a hurry.
A reader recently took me to task for an article I wrote a month ago -- "What Will Be The Big Issue A Year And A Day From Now?" His complaint was that I had asked a bunch of questions, but hadn't provided any answers. He directed me to a radio interview on The World with the editor of the Economist, and asked what I thought about his predictions. So I have decided to accept the challenge and will now confidently predict what will happen in American politics next year.
[Warning: these all have absolutely no basis in reality, and are all merely the product of an overactive imagination. I am not a psychic nor do I pretend to be one. So there.]
It's been a busy week, so forgive me if I don't get to everything today. Part of the reason is the absolute congressional snowstorm of bills moving on the Hill both this week and next, as Congress prepares to scarper off on yet another extended vacation.
I'll do a better tally of all these last-minute efforts when the dust settles next week, I promise. But for now, I'd like to pause for a minute to reflect on the past year of Democratic majority rule in Congress. Putting aside legislative issues, and even putting aside the war for the moment, one thing many partisan Democrats were hoping for this year was some scalps nailed to the wall.
President Bush, in his seventh-ever veto, has just rejected the second incarnation of the State Children's Health Insurance Program bill, otherwise known as SCHIP. That's a pretty bold move to make in December, you've got to admit, since the inevitable comparisons to the Grinch will abound (House Democrat Louise Slaughter even has her own YouTube video up on this theme). While there are enough votes in the Senate to override Bush's veto, there are not enough in the House to do so.
I've written about SCHIP many times before. It's a brilliant political piece of legislation, because it works so well as a wedge issue in the Republican party -- it's got a veto-proof majority in the Senate, and a near-veto-proof majority in the House because more and more Republicans are getting on board, fearing the issue will be used effectively against them in next year's elections.
This is all well and good, and is how politics is supposed to be played, in the midst of getting something good done. Unfortunately, the Democrats are now about to throw out the baby's health insurance with the election-season bathwater. From the New York Times article on the veto:
Leno, Letterman, O'Brien and the rest of the late-night comics and hosts have all gone "dark" ever since the writers' strike began, leaving us with nothing but endless reruns to watch during the wee hours. If this goes on for the next two months, what effect will this have on politics during the crucial presidential primary season?
I have to admit, I didn't come up with this idea myself. I heard it as an offhand comment on one of the news shows (PBS' News Hour, I think) -- that if the strike went on, the candidates will all get a "free pass" on any amusing foibles during the campaign because the late night shows were on hiatus. The person who said this wasn't serious, or at best only half-serious, but it got me to thinking. What if this does have a major effect on politics? What effect would it have, and would it be a good thing or a bad thing?
What if (insert crescendo music here for effect -- dom Dom DOM!!) it already has had an effect?
It always amuses me when Americans are told that the political climate today is "poisonously partisan" or "divided" and that this is "the worst partisanship Washington has ever seen." While pundits in the mainstream media love to whip this non-story into a frenzy every election year, it only goes to prove their utter ignorance of American history.
Take just one example: the church and state debate. Much ink was spilled over Mitt Romney's speech last week about his Mormon faith. Very little attention was paid to America's dark history of anti-Mormonism. Americans, as a whole, are not taught these things in their basic history classes in school, because we naturally shy away from the uglier episodes in our country's past.
But the history remains, for anyone willing to take a look. Mormons have the unusual distinction of being the only religious group in United States history to be singled out in one state for extermination. Well, OK, it was in the midst of the "Mormon War" and the Mormons were not entirely blameless themselves in the run-up to the incident, but still... extermination?
