From Larry Wohlgemuth…

While the tea party ostensibly labors for the return to constitutional governance (no, that’s not a joke) it’s easy to see other hands at work. Several tea party factions have been co-opted by fundamentalist Christians. It’s written all over their signage.

They long for the “good old days”, like back when white people were white and black people were scared shitless. It was a time when your children could pray openly to Jesus in the classroom, getting their heads right for the Klan rally and cross burning on Saturday night. Makes you long for simpler days, doesn’t it?

Now they howl for a return to principles which, if rightly understood, would be the last thing they would want. Their true desires are to exercise a degree of hegemony over other races and classes of people like they did in the 1950s. They couldn’t be more transparent.

These fundies, having gotten a few of their candidates elected, will be clamoring to post the Ten Commandments and reinstate prayer in schools. They see this as a time when the United States will turn its back on sin and return to its “core principles.” It begs the question, do these people have the slightest clue about anything they say?

Christine O’Donnell, the anti-masturbatory candidate from the Jesus party in Delaware, demanded her opponent explain where the words “separation of church and state” appeared in the First Amendment. Well of course he couldn’t, because those words were spoken by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists to elucidate the Establishment Clause to them.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Thomas Jefferson ~excerpt from Letter to Danbury Baptists January 1, 1802

As the main framer of the Constitution, Jefferson was an expert on its intent, and clearly it restricted the state from establishing any religion. This followed the government’s claim in article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Since most of the founders were Deists it seems unlikely that their intent would have been to establish a nation based on the Christian myth. Clearly their writing say as much, but suppose their intent was to create a Christian nation, then whose Christianity would it be? Everybody who wants to see this as a Christian theocracy imagines the dogma would mirror their personal beliefs exactly, but how would that be possible? Since you can’t get any two Christians to even agree on which Bible version to use, how would they ever compromise to create a theocracy?

A cursory review of the data says that Protestant Jesus wins, however closer examination shows a multiplicity of denominations with widely varying and irreconcilable theological disparities. Baptists by far are the largest Protestant denomination, but they make up only 16.5% of the population. They are far outdistanced by the Catholics at 24.5%. For Protestantism to rule would require an unlikely coalition between Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Pentecostals and Presbyterians.

Then you have the minor denominations like the Assemblies of God, Mormon/LDS, Church of Christ and Jehovah’s Witnesses; a more disparate group you could not find. While the Methodists, Lutherans and Presbyterians might be able to work together, they comprise a paltry 14% of the adult population. And the Baptists, well, they vomit in their mouths at the thought of these “lukewarm” denominations. They are certain God will send all mainstream, non-Baptist Protestants to hell.

Since a Protestant coalition acceptable to all is inconceivable, by default we would become a Catholic nation, but hasn’t that been tried before? I seem to recall something in the history books about Inquisitions, Crusades and other generally less than acceptable behaviors on the part of the Catholic Church. Plus we can’t forget how fond they all are of buggering little boys, so I think in the court of public opinion that most would find theocratic Catholicism unacceptable.

So how in the world can we ever get God wedged back into everyone’s lives whether they want it or not? More importantly, how can we do it so that OUR beliefs (which we know are the only TRUE beliefs) are the ones taught in school? How do we make sure that one of the false religions like (insert name of your least favorite Christian denomination here) doesn’t get to impose their will and false doctrine upon us? While I don’t believe Christine O’Donnell could ever think this critically, if you have an IQ above seven and can fog a mirror it’s starting to make sense to you now.

This was exactly the scenario that Jefferson anticipated, and the crux of his explanation to the Danbury Baptists about why they shouldn’t demand a national religion. His argument was, that unless you find yourself in the majority, you might be forced to embrace dogma with which you disagree. Though the Baptists were in a majority in colonial times, today they would find themselves subservient to Catholics. Baptists generally refer to Catholicism as the whore church, so it’s unlikely they would be happy with that circumstance.

While visions of theocratic rule dance in the heads of men like James Dobson and Billy Graham, the fact is they would be serving as butt-boys to Pope Benny the Rat and his cadre of boy-buggering wilde-priests. It would almost be enough to make you laugh except we would all be in the same position, and that’s on our hands and knees.

So as teabaggers display their buffoonery, they can rest secure with the knowledge that the Constitution protects them even though they don’t understand how it works. In this case the worst thing for them would be to get that for which they wish, because the law of unintended consequences would quickly convince them of their error. Unfortunately that’s a deal that once it’s done, too bad, so sad.

It makes you wonder if most of them deserve the protections that the Constitution affords. And Christine, you are correct, the words “separation of church and state” do not appear anywhere in the document although clearly that is the intent, however you have to be able to think more than uni-dimensionally to understand it. That leaves you and most of your teabagger friends out.

The 2010 American midterm elections are over, and there’s important metaphorical tea leaves to read regarding the politics of the immediate, near, and semi-near future, especially in terms of electorate, legislative behavior, and the state of the nation. Republicans have taken the House of Representatives, by a strong majority, in addition to a few seats in the Senate that detract from the Democratic majority, while not removing it. There are, however, a number of reasons this occurred, not necessarily in agreement with what many citizens believe to be true.

Most important, in any definition of the term, was the Tea Party: they both built and destroyed the Republican chances within this election. The Tea Party itself is a group comprised mostly of white, elderly, conservative, irrational individuals that have been deftly manipulated to stand-up for corporate interests and the self-serving agendas of many conservatives with political interests – this was an astroturf, not grassroots, movement. They managed, however, to develop a force of their own that was known to be problematic prior to the election, and their influence wreaked havoc on November 2^nd, 2010.

Tea Party favorites, like Delaware’s Christine O’Donnell or Nevada’s Sharron Angle, managed to receive the GOP nomination, only to be soundly defeated in general voting – this occurred numerous times across the country, simply because moderate Republicans, Independents, and Democrats will not vote for such staunchly conservative candidates who were largely unelectable, unprepared, and demographically non-representative. The other result, however, was that the Tea Party created such a conservative fervor that far more right-wing voters turned out than left-wing, giving credence to candidates who would have stood no chance in a more evenly balanced electorate – Senators Blanche Lincoln (AR) and Russ Feingold (WI), among others, lost for this very reason.

Young voters, who elected President Obama in 2008, chose to not vote, as did far too many Democrats. It’s no small coincidence, however, that this was the first election after the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling that opened the floodgates for even greater corporate influence in elections, at the same time that Karl Rove and others used FEC and IRS loopholes to spend huge amounts of money, much of it anonymous, to run negative ads for conservative, corporatist interests, dwarfing all Democratic efforts in fundraising or campaigning. In an election with a populace easily influenced by advertising and soundbites, no matter their outright lack of basis in truth, it’s no surprise that Republicans did far better than their opponents, especially with the aid of FOX “News” as a political mouthpiece.

Republicans now have a problem: governing. Those who are now within the halls of Congress are there only thanks to the Tea Party and corporate funding, who turn out to be very different masters. The Tea Party claims to care (an important distinction from actually standing for) about lowering the deficit, controlling government spending, rolling back various legislation from the last two years, and various other items that sit in direct conflict with the corporate interests that focus only on their bottom line. Furthermore, the GOP has come to power on a platform of anti-Obama, anti-government rhetoric that now faces the stark reality that not only is government necessary and that they’re a part of it, but also that they can simply no longer refuse any legislation proposed and consider themselves to have behaved sufficiently. As a party with control of half of Congress, and a great influence on the already-problematic other half, Republicans must propose, negotiate, and vote on legislation – “no” will no longer stand as their party response. How are they going to merge the interests of their two funding sources, both of which will be sure to hold them accountable in 2012, with the actual, non-rhetorical needs of the nation?

In all likelihood, the next two years will see little to no legislation passing – the GOP strategy in the Senate seems to be unending attempts at repealing legislation from within the reign of the Obama Administration, and the House’s strategy still remains unclear, although it seems to be slightly more reasonable. It’s fully possible that the Republicans will now spend the coming months in holding hearings and investigations into individuals, legislation, and situations that will waste everyone’s time, as they have done in the past, but will, in parallel, provide them with political theater and a sense of accomplishment. There will be no impeachment of Obama, if only for the obvious reason he has no reason to be impeached; there will be no repeal of healthcare or financial reform, because they don’t have the votes or the true political willpower; there will be no passing of ludicrous legislation, even if it can get through the Senate, because President Obama will not sign it. What will, happen, however is far too much brow-beating, political theater, and finger-pointing, while the act of governing is essentially ignored. Individuals such as Rand Paul, a government-hating Senator who has incredibly damaging ideas of what it means to govern, will attempt to push a radical far-right agenda, but it will go nowhere.

Assuming that the government continues to function at some level, such as Congress passing budgets and essential pieces of legislation, the next two years are not likely to see any major damage done to the nation – if Democrats and President Obama stand strong. On the majority of issues, there should be no compromise, not as a tit-for-tat measure, but simply because Democrats are all that currently stand in the way of the United States waging more wars, fully handing the political system over to corporate interests, and destroying the civil rights of the American people. It will be frustrating that those Democrats of rational mind can do nothing but vote down legislation and create gridlock, but it must be done. It will be frightening to see what will undoubtedly be attempted by John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, but they have no true power without aid from the liberal, or even moderate, sides of the political aisle. It will be embarrassing for all of this to occur, putting general legislative and political insanity on display for all the world to see, but outside powers should know that what is coming will not represent the true attitudes of the country – it will merely be a reflection of a small subset of the nation that managed to, through a series of just-as-embarrassing mistakes by the populace, rise to power.

All of this, however, points to an overwhelming conclusion that will be worth the pain: 2012 will be another Year of the Democrat. As a Presidential election, there will be a higher voter turnout, and it’s reasonable to expect a strong youth turnout as well, swinging the electorate strongly to the left. In addition to the effects of turnout, the coming two years are going to demonstrate to the American people, who have apparently so soon forgotten, what it means to have Republicans in power and how it does neither the people nor the nation any good. Barring a major political misstep by President Obama, he will be re-elected, especially if any of the current potential GOP candidates end up with the nomination – they are just as popularly unelectable as Christine O’Donnell was. Furthermore, without another nation-unifying event, such as a major terrorist attack or some other catastrophic disaster, Democrats will be put back into control of Congress, regaining the majority of the seats they have just lost. The economy will not have improved greatly by the next election and, as in 2010, it will be used to the detriment of those in power, namely the Republicans.

Gridlock, attempted legislative undermining of the nation, and a forestalling of progress on all fronts is nothing to look forward to, but it should be enough of a warning to Democrats for them to get their act together and come back into power in 2012, ready to behave in a more liberal fashion. Democrats, young and old, didn’t vote in 2010 because they saw their members of Congress as too moderate, too conservative – Blue Dogs are a quickly-disappearing political aberration. So, if for no other reason, rationally-minded citizens and liberals alike can look at the coming Congress as a necessary gauntlet that must be passed through in order to reach the progressive light at the end of the tunnel. There can be no question that if the Republicans prove themselves as inept at governing as they truly are, and have been for decades, their political future will seriously begin to be questioned – moreso as they continue to alienate non-whites, younger generations, LGBTs, the educated, and the rational from their party of corporatist, far-right elitism, all while waging internal ideological wars that will split the party.

This, however, says nothing of the extremely damaging and over-reaching conservative activism of the Supreme Court.

From United States Corespondent Gibbs Burke…

Almost two months after the signing of the health care reform plan the economic repercussions have already started to surface. We were told all these wonderful facts about how the bill would reduce the deficit, cost less, and cover more Americans. This facade was just a hypocritical ploy to convince Americans the bill would benefit them. Like most legislation however, the backlash seems to be harming more Americans then the bill is helping. 

The corporate healthcare plans that have dominated American coverage since World War II are in jeopardy of becoming extinct. Immediately after the bill was passed, major US corporations declared large losses. In retaliation, the Democrats threatened the CEO’s by summoning them to Washington to grill them on their actions. It was also demanded they turn over all internal documents regarding the new health care bill. AT&Tand Verizon were among these corporations that declared as much as a one billion dollar loss due to the new health care bill.

After reviewing the documents and understanding that these corporations were only following the letter of the law (a corporation must make public to its share holders profits and expenses), the Democratic committee revoked its threat, and quietly walked away from the situation. It has now resurfaced stronger and more powerful then ever.

Recent documents turned over to the Democratic committee from AT&T reveal the ultimate consequences of the bill. AT&T by denying coverage to its employees can post a profit of 4.1 billion dollars. AT&T is not the only corporation thinking about denying health care coverage. Many corporations will be considering the cost to profit ratio, and come September do not be surprised if you find yourself shopping for health care.

So while the Democrats admit that the projected numbers were wrong, our phone bills are doubling we’re shopping for health insurance. Who will take the responsibility for it? I’m sure it won’t be Obama, because things just slip off him like a Louisiana Oil Spill. Just remember… I told you so.

The year 2009 was not the beginning of a so-called “post-racial” America, no matter how many people believed this to be true after the election of President Obama. After sixteen months of hatred and opposition couched in racism and the growth of openly racist and supremacy organizations, it should have been obvious to many that Barack Obama has been more of a sticking point in the evolution of America’s racial struggles than many would care to admit. Now, however, what may have been unclear to some should be so obvious as to leave no doubt, thanks to the irreconcilable actions by the State of Arizona.

The last year and a half, or longer depending on when Obama is considered to have become a legitimate Presidential candidate, has put on full display the core problem that the American nation has struggled with over the entirety of its existence: a wish for a homogenous culture by some in a country that is defined by its distinct mixture of various cultures. Unlike most countries, the United States was founded by immigrants, expanded with the help of immigrants, and made continually successful through immigrants – the only true American natives have been subjugated from almost the moment of the arrival of its future inhabitants. It is then disturbingly ironic when groups of individuals, typically white, display such hatred and hostility towards any peoples that are unlike them in any fashion, with an intense focus on race, religion, country of origin, and accent.

America’s 21^st century is the same time period wherein being white will suddenly redefine individuals as part of a minority, and yet these very same people protest against the “takeover” of a country they have not only idealized, but largely imagined. No more evident is this fact in modern society than in immigration laws and attitudes, with particular emphasis on Arizona’s newly signed law that is essentially anti-non-white individuals. If an officer of the law, of any kind, is tasked with seeking out individuals that are perhaps in the country illegally, admittedly an important issue, a question arises: how are these individuals found? The answer, especially in the angry and racist south, is likely to be racial discrimination and profiling.

It’s common knowledge that a non-white person in a sports car speeding is more likely to receive a ticket than a white person in the same situation, and this discriminatory comparison extends to other, more detrimental venues, such as the recent event with Henry Louis Gates. Now, however, a state has legitimized this action with a government mandate to behave in such a manner. The Governor of Arizona, Senator John McCain, the Arizona State Legislature, and two-thirds of the state’s populace all find this piece of legislation to be not only legal, but germane to America’s continued success and security as a nation – this from the state that refused to honor Martin Luther King Day. Asking for proof of citizenship of anyone deemed questionable, essentially being forced to self-identify as a certain group, is a highly recognizable facet of a specific moment in history: Nazi Germany.

The legality of such legislation is highly, ethically questionable at best, even disregarding its potential Unconstitutionality, and the institutionalization of racism at worst. This is not to say that illegal immigration should continue to be ignored for the benefit of low wages and easy labor, but that Arizona’s approach is simply, unequivocally wrong. Immigration is an issue that should have been addressed at least a decade ago by the Federal Government, and Congress, in all its smug superiority, has not deigned to act within this arena – likely due to its inevitable political division and the financing from corporations provided for Congress to simply continue the pattern of ignorance.

If Arizona’s legalization of discrimination and racism is allowed to stand, it marks the beginning of a sad, dark era for the United States of America, as many states will quickly follow suit, most especially in the South. This is not a topic that should be partisan, highly corporate, or demonized, and yet within days of the signing of this legislation there has been an uproar on all sides of the political aisle, screaming and fingerpointing included. The Federal Government must not only strike down this law, via the courts, but also provide nationwide legislation that addresses undocumented and illegal immigrants in a humane, non-racist fashion – failing to do so will result in nothing short of a further resurgence of racism and the retreading of race-related civil issues that were supposedly put to rest long ago. At a time when America has its first sitting black President, it is both sad and disheartening that this has become such a dark mark on the nation’s history.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, on Facebook, via email, or on Twitter.

Change, it seems, may be finally coming to American politics.

After almost a year and a half of political wrangling, fake debates, fingerpointing, namecalling, and almost no obvious or momentous progress, President Obama’s campaign slogan appears to have taken Washington D.C. by storm in just a few short days.  With a final vote looming on healthcare reform, despite its status as actual reform now being questionable, some members of Congress have taken advantage of the Democratic momentum to propose, or put the finishing touches, on other legislation necessary for not only progress, but also stability, within America.

Depending on the individual, agency, or group counting, the Great Recession began somewhere around two years ago, and, until recently, regulation to address the very problems that caused the financial and economic crash has been sorely lacking.  Senator Dodd had expressed interest in passing legislation through the Senate Banking Committee, but his dedication came into question when he announced not running for reelection – it is, therefore, surprising that Dodd announced an upcoming regulatory bill.  Some of the details are still murky, but it has intentions to revitalize banking regulation, provide greater watchdog capabilities to both bank shareholders and government, create a “Consumer Financial Protection Agency”, and more.  This bill has not yet been introduced, much less voted on, but if even half of it is passed into law, the battle will be well fought.

In addition to the political surprise by Senator Dodd, the FCC has revealed that they are highly interested in regulating the telecommunication industry, with a great focus on the Internet, as well as opening it up to true competition – Net Neutrality would inevitably be a part of such regulation.  This action isn’t a surprise to those that have been paying attention to the political climate surrounding ISPs since President Obama entered Office, but it will no doubt surprise, frustrate, and anger Republicans that devoutly oppose what they perceive as unnecessary intervention in the private sector, such as John McCain, despite the multitude of failures by the market to regulate itself.

From Congress itself comes an interest in reforming tax regulation to simplify the tax code to close loopholes, remove deductions, and make understanding it easier – potentially reducing taxes for certain income brackets while increasing tax income from those that weasel out of paying what is simply due to the Federal Government.  This move, while potentially politically painful, would satisfy both Republican interests in cutting taxes and the Democratic wish to have corporations play fairly with others, bringing about a rare moment for bipartisan legislation in an era of extreme partisanship.  Ironically, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has just produced stern words for the selfsame Republicans that have been stalling any and all attempts at forward progress, a well-timed jab likely intended to scare up legislative support.

What does this signify as a whole?  The underlying message of this may be that the Democratic majority have grown tired of the obstructionist tactics of the minority party full of bravado, not brains, and is preparing to move forward with or without them.  An important part of this decision may include not only the abject legislative failure of 2009, but also the upcoming midterm elections in November:  if Democrats can show that they passed significant and meaningful legislation almost entirely on their own, they have a greater political advantage than if they were to lay claim to thin bipartisanship.  The central strategy of Republicans has been to “break” both President Obama and his Congress by preventing progress, in order to retake the majority come election time – a prospect that seems bleaker for them by the day.

Whether or not these specific instances of Democratic showmanship turn into actual legislation is an entirely different matter, but the words themselves have signified a change from even just a few weeks ago – a change that is more than welcome.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

Bipartisanship, in modern politics, is a lie – a falsehood, a hopeless dream, a fantasy based on nothing.  And yet this doesn’t prevent either side of the political divide from using the idea of it as a tool for derision, division, and justification, even when those employing it know it to be nothing but empty words.

In the purest sense of the word, bipartisanship is a meeting of groups or individuals with opposing views, while sharing some common points of interest, that results in a healthy compromise between the disparate positions for the overall better.  American politics has not seen this kind of bipartisanship in the last few decades, if not longer, and the roots of partisan voting, including its vitriol, can be traced all the way back to the Declaration of Independence, with 2010 Washington doing their very best to continue this unhealthy state ad infinitem.

Recently, bipartisanship, or a lack thereof, has been used by Republicans in attempts to kill legislation of any kind, but their cries of partisanship avoid a certain fundamental truth:  President Obama’s Administration, and its Congress, have not been bipartisan for the simple fact that the Republicans have refused to participate.  The lack of a desire to govern is not at all comparable to a lack of bipartisan efforts, the latter of which has not been in short supply over the last fourteen months.  This is not so much a battle of diametrically opposing ideologies as it is a distinct dislike for President Obama and his efforts and goals, not to mention the striking characteristics of the GOP’s childlike political tantrum.

It’s time to give up, at least for the remainder of the Obama Administration, the idea of bipartisanship – on everything.  If the opposing party, in this case the Republicans, wish to participate with the President and his Congressional majority in the process of running the nation, they may do so, but concessions should not be made to a group of corrupt individuals that have absolutely no intention of being part of the legislative process except for their own personal gain.  While this applies to Washington at present, the same criticisms can be made for Administrations past, on both sides of the party line, and will no doubt continue into the future.

Until politics reaches a state of enlightenment that includes the ability to have reasoned, unemotional debates, bipartisanship is a lie.  Once the American people realize that the idea of bipartisanship is merely a tool used to garner votes for the party out of favor at election time, the country will have a chance at finally moving forward, as those within Congress will recognize the farce as being over.  Applied immediately, great benefits could be had within a very short period of time.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

With the American Congress and much of the country’s population debating healthcare reform, people from the outside looking in don’t quite understand what all the fuss is about. Even more so, many look on in disbelief over why things have gone so far off the deep end. Name-calling, racial slurs, accusations of communist or even Nazi like behavior, and above all else, a steady stream of fear-mongering - all inspired by a plan that simply tries to provide medical coverage to more Americans. With enough of the populace now successfully confused or afraid and lawmakers appearing more concerned about saving political face, healthcare reform as it was intended appears over. Why did this happen? Why can’t the wealthiest country in the world come up with a way to provide  medical care for all of its citizens? This week RELATIVTY OnLine welcomes American writer Kyle Brady into our humble mix of multiplicity. Our first correspondent to come to us from the United States, each week Brady will take us inside our planet’s most powerful nation. In his first peice, Brady discusses recent attempts at healthcare reform in his country and what he calls the disappointing behavior of his congress.

Congress, it would seem, is hell bent on upsetting and ignoring the American people on a consistent basis, as evidenced by their recent actions within the realm of what is supposed to be healthcare reform.

Even with staunch Republican opposition to any legislation not borne as their own, the House of Representatives passed their version of a healthcare reform bill that stood as a decent start for the legislative process, public option included.  While the bill had its flaws, such as a lack of support for abortions within the public option, victory appeared within grasp for the majority of Americans that have been clamoring for such legislation since President Obama proposed this action during his campaign.  However promising the bill may have been, the Senatorial half of Congress has proven this so-called reform to be an exercise in futility.

The status of true healthcare reform, the public option, and regulation of insurance companies is quite simple: dead. For all intents and purposes, Democrats, Harry Reid especially, have shown a surprising lack of tactical brilliance by negotiating away any legitimate benefits to the American people almost before it started, all while insisting on a 60-vote passage of the bill, rather than the 51 votes needed for a reconciliation between the House and Senate versions.  To many following the issue, the process of reconciliation seemed what the majority party was aiming for after the passage of the House bill, where the bills in each half of Congress could have flaws that would be fixed at a later date with a higher chance of success.

But recent behavior has shown otherwise, as the insistence on 60 votes continues:  numerous Democrats have refused to vote for the bill for various reasons that range from the petty to the easily disproved, which has weakened the majority.  Furthermore, those in power within the Democratic party have attempted to include Republicans on the making of the bill, despite the last eleven months proving they have no interest in cooperation, only obstruction – this has resulted in the stagnation of the bill and whittling away of any value it once had.

The public option is now considered to be dead, but insurance mandates still exist that would require the purchasing of private insurance by all citizens.  There are little to no regulations left to place on the insurance companies.  Medicare may be extended to those starting at the age of 55.  Insurance companies will still have antitrust protection.  How does any of this solve the problem that the legislation was created to address?  As it stands, the only real outcome of the Senate’s version of what is decidedly not healthcare reform is a requirement to purchase insurance, and severe penalties for those that do not.

This is as much the Republicans’ fault as it is the Democrats’ – Republican obstructionism forced concessions almost immediately, and the Democrats have shown a considerable lack of spine.  It is entirely unacceptable that passing legislation would take an entire year and yet have no tangible, let alone beneficial, results once passed, but this appears to be what Congress prefers.  Special interest groups, lobbyists, and corporate pockets have all but prevented progress within the borders of America, and it didn’t even require outside influence by nefarious forces.

When Congress’ finances are at stake, they seem to be willing to take quick and decisive action, no matter how much populist anger it may raise: TARP, the auto-industry, and various other situations have proven this since President Obama’s Inauguration.  But when those financial interests do not wish to be disturbed, most Congressional politicians take it upon themselves to make sure nothing gets done within their supposedly venerable halls – Joe Lieberman is a prime example of such shamefully unabashed sellout behavior.

The House moved considerably quicker than the Senate, to much greater success, and for this they should be applauded, but one of the key reasons for this was that the methods by which the House operates allow certain voices to be ignored or limited if necessary.  The Senate does not have these restrictions, and therefore the debate drags on endlessly to the great frustration of the American people, all while Senators pretend to be making great progress, participate in showboating, and taking extraordinarily necessary means to make a point that has been made many times over.

Unless there is a grand scheme, such as Senate Democrats secretly organizing a 51-vote reconciliation process that President Obama would be clandestinely involved with, true healthcare reform appears dead in the water and will exist as a shameful black mark on the American record for years to come.  If there is no public option, no extension of Medicare to all citizens who wish it, and no regulation of insurance companies, then it is not healthcare reform – it’s corporate expansion masquerading as social progress.

This is not the time to give up, however.  The need is now greater than ever for Americans to attempt to make their voices heard by Congress, the Senate especially – the vocal and irrational minority that has hijacked such an important issue must be drowned out with the proclamation that citizens of the United States of America will not suffer being lied to, manipulated, and deceived.  If healthcare reform cannot pass because of sabotage from within the Democratic Party by those that masquerade as liberals, progressives, or even moderates, for them there must be a reckoning.

Congress should be aware, Democrats and Republicans both, that many political careers currently hang in the balance due to their disappointing behavior surrounding the healthcare reform process, and that their party affiliation will not save them from being voted out of office in the next election – from this, President Obama is not excluded.  In what was to be one of the defining moments of his Presidency, President Obama appears to be willing to accept any sort of legislation so it can be labeled as groundbreaking progress, and this is unacceptable to many of his greatest supporters that range from young to old, progressive to moderate.

Both 2010 and 2012 may end up being more of a race than incumbent Democrats had imagined.

Kyle Brady can be found at his blog, on Twitter or via email at kyle@kyle-brady.com / brady.k@gmail.com