From American Corespondent Gibbs Burke…

While the debate rages over whether or not America should remove the, “under god” from The Pledge of Allegiance, I have a substitution that would fit perfectly, “under government.” Don’t get me wrong I am totally against the removal of, “under god” from The Pledge of Allegiance for two main reasons: I am a traditionalist, and that such actions destroy our Nations History by turning a blind eye to the beliefs that got us to where we are today. If you’re trying to make an omelet without breaking any eggs, then you are just going to end up with a hot pan.

In regards to being under government, however, is no laughing matter. Since the recessions beginnings the private sector has expanded a mere 1%, while our beloved government has expanded a whopping 17%. In addition it is unlikely that those of you, which are 20% of employees in the United States, will ever lose your beloved government job. Why is that you ask? It’s simple, because you are more likely to die then lose your government job.

Recently Obama went on tour promoting his “common sense” job plan looking to gain support for this $477 billion plan. So let the liberal propaganda begin and polluting the American public with how they are the party of hope. Remember they have had nearly four years to turn the economy around. Holding steady with a 9~10% unemployment, and the last recovery act they promised that would bring us out of this spiral worked so well. I seem to remember something like 2.5-3.5 million jobs to be created by this new bill, however even there own statistics have to be skewed to show merely 550,000 jobs. How are they skewed? They include any job that uses money from the bill, not just new jobs created.

So we spend more money, while we create a net loss in jobs. Our credit rating goes down, and our debt goes up. Our job creation is zero, and our unemployment is high. Government employment rises, private sector falls. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. This repeat of a failed bill seems like insanity to me, but then again thats a Liberal’s plan for you.

So while the Liberals continue with their self patronization and their beliefs that Obama is somehow the messiah of Presidents, the reality is that not only is the Liberal agenda running America into the ground, but Obama is the one leading the charge under the guise of bi-partisanship. But if you would like to find your heads I will even give you the roll you will need to find it, however if you think this bill will work just like the last one you will need a whole case.      

From American Corespondent Kyle Brady…

There’s a large number of citizens, interested parties, and pundits who have spoken on the success/failure of President Obama’s first term of office , usually with a clearly partisan divide. Republicans, and conservatives in general, tend to find great fault with anything, and everything, the President has done, on both factual and imaginary grounds, while liberals are divided amongst themselves on whether or not the President has been effective thus far.

What if, instead, an analysis was provided on President Obama’s clearly demonstrated liberal politics? What if this analysis was done with an eye toward political pragmatism, rather than the ultimate goals of the progressive wing of liberalism? What if the dislike-by-default ideology of Republicans and conservatives, often tainted with various forms of bigotry, was ignored altogether?

President Obama has two main problems, currently. First, there’s the stalwart opposition that the GOP has provided since he was inaugurated, which has quite effectively made even the most mundane procedures laborious and rancorous. Second, and perhaps more importantly, stand the idealistic notions that many American liberals have of not who President Obama is or what he ran on, but rather what he should be and what they believe his 2008 campaign was about.

Progressives and leftists of all types have been at the President’s heels from the beginning, pressing him to enact everything he’s ever promised and immediately reverse all that has been wrong with the country for the decade previous. This, in all honesty, is a naive and immature view of the American political system, especially since the system was specifically designed to be full of delay, debate, and disparity. With a few, rare, exceptions of a President with nationalistic passions behind them, typically at the beginning of military conflicts and their conclusions, if successful, Presidents simply don’t have as much influence on the legislative and judicial process that most citizens believe they do.

As a result, his agenda, an overwhelmingly liberal agenda, has taken time to implement, because of the longterm implementation strategy necessary in the current, extremely hostile, Congressional climate. The repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”  was not fast, by any means, but the process has resulted in an essentially ironclad repeal of the military’s discriminatory policy for its LGBT members. Correspondingly, President Obama’s approach to so-called gay marriage has been publicly described as “evolving,” which many believe is code for “be patient, it’s coming.”

Going through, item by item, President Obama has had great success as a liberal President. While he has shown himself not to be the bombastic, forceful President of liberal causes that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was, the current President has enacted more liberal policies and pursued liberal ideals more than any President of, at a minimum, the last three decades. Has President Obama solved the problems of the United States, and the world, as he turns a country away from its ever-more-conservative path? No. Is he the latest incarnation of George H.W. Bush or his son? Ronald Reagan? Richard Nixon? A policy doppelgänger of John McCain? Obviously not.

Even with the issue of the federal debt, deficit, and debt ceiling, there are two central facts often forgotten about Barack Obama: he’s a highly intelligent individual known for his ability to play, and win, political games, and he’s a Democratic President who actually cares about the citizens of the United States. For all that liberals complain about the speed or agenda of this Administration, it must be remembered that the alternative was the ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin, which would have been far worse. There could have been no better Democratic President for this moment.

President Obama’s aims are not truly in question. Although his methods are open for inquiry, he has a history of pulling last-minute victories out of apparent defeat, all while advancing the nation in a more pragmatically liberal direction.

 ”Addendum: This piece was written prior to the President’s July 25th speech on the debt, debt ceiling, and Congress. However, the outcry of progressives afterward only serves to prove the point that they are never sated with a Democratic President, no matter how capable or self-consistent they are.”

Kyle Brady is a young political scientist and writer interested in everything from domestic politics to foreign policy to political theory, currently living in San Jose, CA.  He blogs at kyle-brady.com, is writing a book on the modern political scene in America, is on Twitter as @brady_kyle, and can be reached at kyle@kyle-brady.com. 

From American Corespondent Kyle Brady…

America has an education problem.

It’s not that the United States doesn’t have an educational system or is somehow perennially cast as having an exorbitantly low IQ, but rather that the system itself is dysfunctional and not producing the results intended . For three decades, since the arrival of Ronald Reagan to the Presidency in 1981, public education has been under attack through the backdoor-privatization known as charter schools , the over-specialization of magnet schools , and, more destructively, underfunding.

For most of modern history, when a state government finds itself in a problematic budget situation, the funding to public education gets cut – not just at the college level, but typically across the board. Rather than substantially cutting the salaries of public workers/civil servants with higher salaries (such as six-figure salaries for members of the state senate), closing tax loopholes, raising taxes on those who should be expected to pay their proportionate share (the rich), or ending expensive pet projects, the default choice is to defund the school system, along with other detrimental, self-inhibiting actions. This same tendency is observed at the national level, where members of Congress choose to cut funding to state education programs, rather than making more logical cuts.

The result of three decades of the slow destruction of the public education system is that it’s immensely dysfunctional and nationally embarrassing: graduation rates for the United States have dropped over time, and they now stand below nearly half of the world, including most of Europe. There are other indicators that show American children are no longer as proficient at math, science, and analytical processes than in decades past, a reality noted by President Obama in his 2011 “State of the Union” address. Economists, educators, political scientists, a majority of pundits, various think tanks, and a large swath of the American public all acknowledge that the educational system needs reform, which includes greater funding at more stable levels. Why the disconnect?

A disconnect between the American people and those governing the country exists on the issue of education for a simple reason: the funding of education has no short-term results. Whether an educational program is given greater or lesser funding has no immediate effect on any politician’s constituents, and, therefore, their election cycle. The politicians in control of United States policy, at both a federal and state level, have great difficulty in seeing and planning for the future – their interests are of the moment and in what is better for their next re-election (as discussed in Chapter 7 of the upcoming book, Modern America: The End of Political Discourse.

Education, especially effective public education made available for all, is crucial to the growth and development of a state, and the United States is no different: the various booms and advances of the country’s history are, largely, due to the initial efforts of a group of well-educated individuals. Science and math are essential in a world that is increasingly reliant upon electronics for daily use, much less a future of alternative energy and cyborg dreams. Yet, science and math are eschewed as nerdy and unnecessary – until they’re suddenly vital and under strenuous demand. Other subjects, such as English, composition, and foreign languages, are also crucial to the continued cultural and economic growth of the nation.

Politicians must quickly acknowledge that the educational system is not available for pilfering, should the budget require more available funds than actually exist. In fact, the cuts made to education over the last three decades must be quickly reversed (after adjusting for inflation), reforms must be implemented that reward effective teachers, and marketing programs must be begun to draw the attention of teenagers back into the classroom, away from the culture of celebrity and sports that seems to have taken over the public discourse. A failure to do so will result in nothing less than the increased dependence of the United States on foreign states and an immigrant work force in order to continue living as a First World state, placing America and all its citizens in an extremely vulnerable and volatile position.

Without proper education, there can be no booming modern economy; without a booming modern economy, all the benefits of power and funding that politicians have enjoyed will fade away, in parallel with the decline of American civilization.

Kyle Brady is a young political scientist and writer interested in everything from domestic politics to foreign policy to political theory, currently living in San Jose, CA.  He blogs at kyle-brady.com, is writing a book on the modern political scene in America, is on Twitter as @brady_kyle, and can be reached at kyle@kyle-brady.com.

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.

Given the high-stakes ideological wars being fought in modern American politics, and with such intense levels of rhetoric, it’s interesting to consider what the Presidential election of 2012 might look like. Three scenarios present themselves: an extension of the current situation, a Republican Congress for the coming two years (or at least half of Congress), or a Democratic Congress

Assuming for the moment, no matter how improbable it is, that Congress stays in essentially the same form of seat-based gridlock, a curious situation arises: if Congressional Republicans, and the GOP at large, continue the path they’ve begun of obstruction, rollbacks, repeals, and “how far can we move to the right”, they will have essentially handed the Presidency to President Obama for his second Term of Office. Contrary to the belief of some, a policy of obstruction and extreme conservatism is not what the majority of America wishes to see, and it places the members of such a party in an unelectable position. More importantly, however, is the gift they give to their opponent: talking points.

Even if nothing else is passed in Congress over the next few years, President Obama will have healthcare reform, financial reform, the beginning of Iraqi withdrawal, an Afghanistan military timetable, and considerably more to speak about. Additionally, the GOP’s “Pledge to America” and well-documented behavior will give him the ability to point toward the actions of Republicans over the preceding four years, and ask America if this is truly what they want more of. It’s easy to see how, no matter who the Republican candidate is, this would be another landslide election for President Obama – no matter personal opinion of his time as President, he truly shines in a competitive campaign environment, and hard data will only strengthen his position.

Similarly, a Democratic Congress for another two years is merely an extension of the aforementioned situation, as it would both give Republicans the ability to continue to obstruct and generally fail to govern, without actually handing the government over to them. Therefore, the presentation of a Republican Congress is the only truly different scenario, as there would be a period of two years for President Obama to reference, using their failed control of Congress against them. It’s not difficult to imagine a Republican Congress refusing to cooperate with President Obama’s policy goals, just as it’s not difficult to imagine President Obama handily vetoing many of the pieces of legislation passed under such a Congress.

If, however, a Republican Congress manages to achieve some of their stated goals, such as a repeal of healthcare reforms, continued protection of Big Business, or a version of “fiscal conservatism” that results in an even greater national deficit, they will have once more walked into a corner. Two years of Republican policies, perhaps even ones that negatively effect the country, will be far easier set of talking points for a Democratic Presidential candidate to use on the campaign than the obstruction of a Congressional minority. When President Obama can point to the number of ludicrous bills he vetoed, or bills turned into law that were catastrophic in their results, the election will have again been won.

Perhaps Republicans will take some Congressional seats in November, although any form of majority seems unlikely, but this is not necessarily for the net negative – two years of Republican rule in Congress will see President Obama handily re-elected for a second Term of Office, and control of Congress passing once more to Democrats, in a far larger majority than in 2008. The only choice the GOP has to avoid this future is to stop, effective immediately, their continued push to the extreme right of both ideology and religion, but this is, realistically, all but impossible. Having built their existence and negligible growth on the fundamentalist ideology of the Tea Party and other similarly non-mainstream ideas, it would, at this point, be difficult to reverse course, or even slow the process.

Republicans, welcome to your future.

From Kyle Brady…

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

From Larry Wohlgemuth…

Republicans have been declaring for more than a decade that we now live in post-racial (and by implication prejudicial) America. Actually it should be stated as post-racial/prejudicial, because that insinuates that we have moved past all petty prejudices to a point of frank, open and honest discussion on issues that affect us all. That means we’ve moved past bigotry based on nationality, gender, religion or any of the myriad of preferences which identify us as individuals. It implies that no one any longer looks down his or her nose at anyone else.

I would like to believe it to be true, but the racial/prejudicial period ended too easily for me to accept it on its face. When something has been as institutionalize as have our prejudices, it generally ends with thrashing about and gnashing of teeth rather than a whimper. Yet the Republicans have declared it, so it must be so, right? It begs the question, who did the Republicans think they could convince that we had entered this utopist and idyllic post-racial/prejudicial world?

I wondered if they are talking about 30-year-old Anthony Hill of Winnsboro, SC, or possibly James Byrd, Jr. of Jasper, Texas when they refer to this as a post-racial society. Hill was dragged to death behind a pickup truck driven by 19-year-old Gregory Collins of Newberry, and Byrd was dragged to death in 1998 behind a pickup truck by three men, Shawn Allen Berry, Lawrence Russell Brewer and John William King. I’m sure that the fact these two murders took place in what were considered as highly racist states in pre-post-racial/prejudicial times is merely a coincidence, just as was the fact that the victims were black and the perpetrators were white. This is just how things play out in a post-racial/prejudicial society.

Then there’s Dr. George Tiller, gunned down in his church for having the audacity to perform abortions, a procedure that is legal in the United States. However we can be sure in this post-racial/prejudicial society that a mentally deficient man like Scott Roeder would never have considered Dr. Tiller’s vocational activities when he walked into that church with a loaded gun and shot the doctor dead in front of the congregation. Once again, we can be sure that this didn’t happen because of prejudice, because the Republicans have assured us that we are now a post-racial/prejudicial society.

And we have the good Dr. Laura, who although she’s white felt entitled to use the N-word 11 times in a five-minute span on her radio program because black comedians on HBO and Showtime do it. You see, in a post-racial/prejudicial society we’re all free to use any words we choose, because we couldn’t possibly be making a racist innuendo. No, we’re simply exercising our First Amendment rights, and besides, we know this wasn’t a racist remark because Dr. Laura told us so several times right after she said it. If you can’t trust Dr. Laura in these post-racial/prejudicial times, then who can you trust?

Finally there are the cases of Lawrence King, Matthew Shepard, Danny Overstreet, Philip Walsted, Sakia Gunn, Glenn Kopitske, Scotty Joe Weaver, Daniel Fetty, Jason Gage, Ryan Keith Skipper, Roberto Duncanson, Sean William Kennedy, Steven Parrish, Lateisha Green and Seaman August Provost, among many others, who were killed, but not for being gay. It seems that their attackers admitted that the victims’ homosexuality was the impetus for the attack, but in a post-racial/prejudicial society we have to take their admissions with a grain of salt. After all, they can’t possibly be aware of the post-racial/prejudicial dynamics that are taking place around them, making their attacks of the non-racial/prejudicial type. I mean, even the case of Ronnie Antonio Paris Jr., a three-year-old boy killed by his father because he was afraid his son might be gay, that’s just the way straights and gays interact in the post-racial/prejudicial era.

Okay, it’s pretty clear that we are not in a post-racial/prejudicial time based on what’s happening around us. So what’s going on? I mean, why are the Republicans working so hard to convince us that something exists when it obviously does not?

In this country there are only 5%, maybe 10%, of the people that are actually Republicans, and the rest are posers although they don’t realize it. To be a Republican means being a capitalist, and only a tiny fraction of people fit the description. The problem is, part of being a Republican is being able to look down your nose at other people, and the vast majority of the Republican Party are just working assholes like you and me, so there was some work that had to be done. It was necessary to create a significant enough underclass so that the idiot who makes $10 per hour working on an assembly line and watches Glen Beck can actually feel superior to somebody, and therefore a member of the Republican club. Minorities fill that bill nicely, thank you very much, but as the line of separation blurs so does the ability of the moronic masses in the Republican Party to look down on someone. Feeling superior is a crucial tenet to making the pseudo-Republicans believe they really are part of the club.

So how do they make this work? They behave even more racist and prejudiced than in the past, and then repeat over and over again that this is how things are in a post-racial/prejudicial world. They know if they say it long and loudly enough, and nobody objects, there’s a chance people will start to believe it. The problem is that genie is out of the bottle and they can’t regain control, try as they might. If the illusion of superiority ever leaves the working class schlemiels of the Republican Party they might quit participating, or even worse become Democrats. It’s a lot of work making a guy who earns $10 an hour believe he’s in some way superior to a brown person with a PhD.

So the Republicans will continue lest 70% of their party come to the realization that they are superior to no one. It would be a devastating blow for them. As a result we can expect to see more blatant racism followed by still more disingenuous, wide-eyed denials that racism was the intent. Without it their party shatters into 1 million pieces.

The one good thing is that the Republican demographic is dying, literally, and I have to be honest about the fact that it bothers me little. There are some people that just don’t deserve to waste our oxygen.

Much is said, and written, about the problems with modern conservatives: far-right, extremist, fundamentalist, Bible-beating, overtly religious, bigoted, etc. But what about the problems with liberals? There is, in terms of newspapers and television, honestly no “liberal media” – it’s simply a media that isn’t conservatively biased; however, a very large portion of the Internet and political conversation inside the borders of America actually is liberal, of one kind or another. Being liberal, or holding liberal values, is not inherently bad, just as the rational alternative in conservatism is not, but there are various types of liberalism, and many of them are not conducive to a coherent political atmosphere.

Quite unlike conservatives, there are many factions within the concept of liberalism within America, and this leads to the inability to govern as a cohesive whole, as is currently demonstrated in Congress. The two sources of problems within the liberal voting bloc are easily identified, as they are the liberal answer to the extreme right: Progressives and, since there is no actual term for them, Ultra-Progressives.

The ideology of Progressives is actually quite noble, since they seek ultimate equality, freedoms, and guaranteed well-being of people, no matter race, creed, or ideals. Ultra-Progressives are actually no different, but they, instead, take such ideology to a more extreme level. Once again, there is nothing inherently wrong with these values – the problem arises in their disregard for political realities and stalwart insistence on the impossible. By way of example, the concept of universal healthcare is laudable and most definitively a requirement for a future America, but it is all but impossible to jump straight to such a system at present, given political realities. This, however, did not stop a number of members of Congress from opposing healthcare reform because it, according to their unshakeable beliefs, didn’t go far enough.

There is a time and a place for everything, but the halls of Congress, in terms of fanciful ideals and social utopia, is not it. Basic geopolitical reality mandates that military conflict is unavoidable, although not always necessary, but there are liberals who oppose warfare of any kind, no matter the justification. Big Business is a greatly hated entity, but it is necessary to the function of modern America, so staunchly opposing anything related to these enterprises is futile, at best. True that tragedies in Darfur, among others, are saddening, but America cannot be both eminently peaceful and the world’s police force. An all-green, oil-free America is a fantastic goal to strive for, but weeping over legislation that doesn’t achieve all such goals at once benefits no-one. The list goes on.

Liberals need to realize is that there is a distinction, often great, between what can be achieved in modern politics and what should be done – the road to universal healthcare is through incremental implementation, just as the road to peace is realistically through war. Far-left liberal ideologies are fanciful, at best, and they influence, without question, the direction of the nation’s future, but such beliefs should be played closer to the chest in the game of national politics. Without a greater consensus among liberals within the Democratic Party, in terms of items feasible versus ideal, there will be no progress, and, as a consequence, a swing in power to conservatives that have no problem thinking, speaking, and voting as a bloc.

Green Peace, PETA, and their brethren may have more ideologically acceptable, and rational, opinions, but they are still political outliers, fringe movements that attempt to dominate debates without realizing the damage they cause. Interestingly enough, this is the same behavior of the irrational Tea Party.

From Kyle Brady…

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

The Rise of the New Right is an hour long documentary recently aired on MSNBC and hosted by Hardball’s Chris Matthews. The documentary looks at the rise of the Tea Party movement and a number of other right-wing organizations and militias that have formed since Barack Obama was elected President of the United States in 2008. Matthews said the wide range of individuals and groups profiled in the piece all seemingly share a fear of the current American government.

“There’s a similar message. This government’s a tyranny and it has to be, if not overthrown, then something like it. They treat the American government like a foreign occupying force,” say Matthews.

“He’s going to destroy this country,” Allan Keyes, the Republicans last-ditch effort to stop Obama’s inevitable election to the US senate in 2004 at one point says, “We are either going to stop him, or the United States of America is going to cease to exist.”

No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, the documentary will stir people up… which is the whole point.

Ridiculous court decisions financed by large corporations and industries seem to not only be increasing in number, but also be ever-more transparent in their intent – the recent block of President Obama’s moratorium on deep-water drilling by a Federal Court is no exception. Even more preposterous is the support of the State of Louisiana for the overturning of the drilling ban, despite the ongoing ecological disaster that very state is currently experiencing at the hands of an industry they so blatantly choose to support.

The problem of Deepwater Horizon surrounds a search for profits over safety and a complete disregard of federal regulation, not any sort of accident or event otherwise removing BP, Transocean, and Halliburton from positions of culpability – who’s to say that this is an isolated incident? Given the vicious, highly litigious, heavily lobbying industry that is Big Oil, it’s very easy to assume that such practices are being carried out on other oil operations in an effort to maximize their bottom line. This is the simple reason for the temporary ban on deep-water drilling, a mere six months, allowing regulators and other oversight bodies to ensure the proper construction and operation of facilities that have the potential for disaster of comparable, or greater, proportions.

It should come as no surprise, sadly, that the judge responsible for this despicable and utterly shortsighted ruling, Martin Feldman, was appointed by Ronald Reagan, the founder of the deregulatory and anti-government era, and has a personal investment in the success of American oil operations. This sort of personal investment is the very reason for recusal, and yet the illustrious Judge Feldman didn’t see fit to behave in the official and unbiased fashion for which he is employed – instead, he chose to continue the precedent of conservative judges claiming neutrality while making sure he, his friends, and his ideological interests benefit in the greatest possible way from his rulings from the bench. This type of behavior can be expected to continuously resurface as healthcare reform is challenged by irrational litigatorselection results don’t suit the conservative fringe.

Worringly, however, is the response of Louisiana: a state with an anti-Obama governor who vehemently opposed the very existence of the federal government suddenly demanded extreme government intervention, while also supporting the classic conservative financier known as Big Oil in their efforts against the President. Why would a state ravaged by the abhorrent behaviors of an oil company also litigate for those same companies to continue operating as if nothing happened? The state’s ecology is in dire peril and its people are losing their way of life, yet Big Oil must, apparently, be defended, lest a Republican-led state appear to be too pro-regulation, or in favor of anything President Obama does. This is hypocrisy at best, and extreme ignorance at worst.

The Gulf Spill should not be a politicized event, simply due to its nature and magnitude, but the GO(B)P are doing absolutely everything in their power to make it so. Extreme partisanship continues to be the political stance of Republicans, and it’s doing nothing but embarrass them on the national stage – perhaps they should continue, so that not only are Democrats in a better electoral position come November, but Eric Holder will have a number of opportunities to ensure that intelligence, in the end, rules the day.

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

From Kyle Brady…

The public’s response to the BP oil spill and its handling, most especially from Republicans, has been puzzling, at best: a cry for government intervention and aid from the very people who find such behaviors abhorrent, making President Obama out to be somehow responsible for the deregulatory activity of the last three decades , and demanding that a magic solution be found for a difficult engineering problem. It’s important to remember that while President Obama is President of the most powerful nation in the world, he’s not a comic book superhero, and is no more capable of singlehandedly solving the Gulf Coast’s oil crisis than he is enacting sweeping political change overnight. While certain actions could possibly have been taken by President Obama prior to the spill, such as a more critical look at the MMS, it’s doubtful that even those steps would have gone so far as to alleviate the brash and brutish mentality currently on display by both British Petroleum and Halliburton.

Even more puzzling has been the demand, on both sides of politics, for President Obama to “be more active”, “have a greater presence”, “show control”, and other such theatrics – wasn’t he elected, among other reasons, for the simple fact that his sense of melodrama is severely understated compared to his predecessor? Visiting beaches and recovery efforts provides for a nice photo-op and while they may help to communicate the gravity of the situation, in some small fashion, the actual presence of any top level bureaucrats does absolutely nothing for the cause – neither does a public display of righteous anger. To those that have come to understand President Obama’s political style over the last eighteen months, his concern for, and outrage regarding, the situation is visibly present in his remarks, even if his calm, professorial demeanor seems to indicate otherwise. The President’s job is not to babysit or micromanage, to exploit situations for personal political benefit or to feign personae tailored to the situation – his job, rather, is to run the country, lead the military, influence policy, and stand as a figurehead for the nation.

Both the near-term and long-term aftermath are, however, within the President’s job description: once the situation stabilizes, whether that means the well is sealed or that sealing efforts have been abandoned remains to be seen, he is to make sure the event, as a whole, is analyzed and properly dealt with. The process begins with a National Commission to deliver details on the timeline, parties responsible, and overall impact, and ends with retribution. For the time being, however, all President Obama can do is to continue to express his distaste for the situation, admonish the corporate arrogance, and wait for the process to turn to him – nothing more.

Most importantly, while this oil spill happened during President Obama’s time as President, his hands are not the ones covered with oil and the blood of all the animals killed by it – President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are. Without the help of deregulation, unenforcement, and what’s now being referred to as a “revolving door” between the regulators and oil companies, the present situation would have, statistically, had a better chance of never occurring. Furthermore, the colloquial “drill, baby, drill” mentality of many members of the federal government exacerbated an already bad situation by placing an emphasis on results rather than process. This is not “Obama’s Katrina”, this is, instead, just another disaster inherited from the previous eight years, much like the Great Recession or the various mismanaged military engagements.

Until President Obama makes a mistake or acts against the interests of the nation, he deserves the respect that his office demands. No-one should be asking for the President of the United States to produce impossible results, nor should they ever forget the root cause of the problem. It’s shameful to see some of the most intelligent people in politics put on a show for the Gulf Coast’s oil crisis, and for President Obama to stoop so low would be not only embarrassing, but debasing.

From Kyle Brady…

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