Did Obama Just Lose My Vote?

This is serious. I’ve been saying for quite a while that Obama has not yet earned my vote and I am quite happy voting for Nader to help strengthen efforts toward a multi-party system. However, I voted for Obama in the primary here in Texas and was excited to vote for the first viable African-American candidate in the U.S.

Also, this is the most important election in years, if for no other reason than the necessity to populate the Supreme Court with judges who will protect civil liberties unlike those Bush has appointed or McCain would appoint.

While I have continuously lambasted the lack of character Hillary Clinton and her husband have shown during the primary season, I would not say I have been sipping “Obama Kool-Aid.” I understand that his “Change We Can Believe In” slogan is only as effective as his ability - to put it simply - to get things done. And politicians have to work together to accomplish progress. (Unless you’re President Bush, in which case you use the 9/11 attacks and existence of terrorism to scare Americans and politicians alike into marching behind your efforts to make the U.S. more of an authoritarian regime than ever before. Ugh, the thought makes it difficult to keep my coffee and chocolate granola cereal down.)

Obama is a politician first. With a degree in Government, I never lose sight of this. While Democrats fall in love (and Republicans fall in line) we must not forget that politicians must operate within the existing confines of the Washington Dance. This will inevitably lead to widespread disapointment with Obama, when he’s president, because he simply cannot please everyone and will have to compromise in order to accomplish certain goals. A president must make decisions when no option is the right one. It’s a hard gig - the hardest one in the world; I thoroughly recognize this.

However, much of my free time this week has been spent trolling the internet for a reasonable justification for Obama’s approval of the new FISA Act of 2008. Of course, I already have my fair share of underlying bitterness because the Democrats have performed disgracefully since taking control of the Congress. They are inexplicably banner ankle-grabbers again and again despite Bush’s record disapproval ratings. Yes, they do not want to seem weak on national security, but they are greatly underestimating the American people’s desire to have their civil liberties protected in this era of heightened danger.

Congressional members have far more concern with the length of their federal careers than casting the appropriate vote - rendering them impotent in the areas of war profiteering (Diane Feinstein’s husband is a defense contractor and why she still enjoys support in California, I have no idea. BTW, she vote AYE on FISA as well), criminal activity at the executive level (erasing emails, Karl Rove and Harriet Miers refusing to testify, Valerie Plame, fixing EPA reports and much, much more), reforming health care and national energy policy, policing unfair lending practices and allowing the establishment of a credit industry that works against the American people, not for them. It inexplicable that Congress has utterly failed to inhibit Bush’s harmful activities when the majority of Americans do not favor his policies in the slightest. It is frustrating and goddamned ridiculous.

So, Obama is Change personified, right?

Apparently, not so. Yes, I have read his blog on The Huffington Post regarding his FISA vote, which proffered no substantial logic for his approval of the bill. A few gems from the piece are:

Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I’ve chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention — once I’m sworn in as president — to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That’s ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have.

The problem with our agreement on the vast majority of issues is that his vote on the FISA bill illustrates his inherent weakness and willingness to compromise when no comprise is needed simply to prove (which he fails to do with this vote) that he is strong on national security. This “aye” was unnecessary, dangerous, wrong, hurtful and potentially, yes, a deal breaker. Especially when assessing the guts of the bill, along with those who voted against it. On The Huffpo website, David Bromwich provides a very concise, yet in-depth look at the governmental powers granted with this legislation. I strongly recommend reading the blog and the readers’ comments below.

Among the senators who opposed the vote are Biden, Boxer, Dodd, Clinton, Byrd, Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Kerry, Leahy, Reid and Levin.

The bottom line is that political agreements with a candidate are moot if the candidate does not have the political strength or fortitude to operate in accordance with that agreement.

Of course, Obama’s folding on FISA was a political calculation - that’s practically consensus. And I wish he could offer an honest defense of his vote; but, alas, this theater of election season would lead any such candor to damage the candidate.

Obama will be elected president barring any unforeseen, intensely damaging and highly unlikely circumstances. Though the media portrays the presidential race as close - it is a facade. McCain’s chances of succeeding in November, in my opinion, are around 1 in 5. Incumbent parties do not win when the economy is in the tank - mentally or not (and it’s not mental, Phil, when milk, bread, cereal, gas and all other necessities are more and more expensive and the dollar is weaker and weaker). McCain is not galvanizing and voter trust of most election issues points toward Obama. I wish Obama the best and will be hopeful as he takes his oath of office.

Furthermore, I applaud Obama’s willingness to work across the aisle and understand there will be areas in which he will break with Liberals. Support of faith-based community initiatives, for one (and this coming from an agnostic).

The FISA Act, however, is so detrimental to democracy itself, my respect for not just Obama himself, but the very idea of Obama has been irreparably damaged. I would encourage hardcore Obama supporters to keep this particular vote of his in mind when daydreaming of the days to come as he takes on the heavy mantle of President of the United States of America. Perfection at this level does not exist and any romance with a candidate will certainly abate over time.

I would never cast a vote for McFlip-Flop, nor would I ever stay home and waste a voting opportunity. Also, I am a thorough, complete supporter of a multi-party system. While I wanted to vote for Obama - and was excited to vote for him - my decision was not cast in stone. It still is not cemented. However, the odds I would pull the lever in support of him this November are greatly diminished. Truthfully, I am ever more looking in Nader’s direction.

If Obama’s political contributions continue to decline, I encourage him to address his FISA ‘08 support with increased seriousness. This is no small issue for those of us who follow politics and government activity.

This weekend, I plan on purchasing Obama’s two books and will begin reading them with a large grain of salt. Perhaps this will allow me some insight behind this recent mind-boggling decision of his.

As of this point, Obama is not Hope and he is not Change We Can Believe In. He is merely Better Than Bush, but isn’t everybody else?

Touchdown! Barack Obama Named Democratic Nominee

Jeeeeeeez. Sigh. Phew.

I think the gloriousness in my emotion is more directed at the fact that Hillary lost than that Barack won, in all truth. Most of my blogs on this issue have focused on her lacking rather than his qualities. I’m sure she won’t go quietly into the night but at least I’m not having heart palpitations with the intruding thought that the presidential contest will be between Hillary and McFlipflop. It’s a good night with a sentiment that will pass quickly as the real mudwrestling begins.

That being said, Obama still has not earned my vote. Now that he has clenched the nomination, it’s time to read up on his books - my mom said she received a right-wing email today that included shockingly racist quotations from his books. I told her to forward it to me so I can check it out, but I’m not holding my breath.

Another consideration upon which I now must focus is how strident Republican support and participation is this election and if it’s cemented that Texas will go red in November. Everyone I know says something different and I don’t even want to hope that TX can change gears. Remember, high gas prices are a GOOD thing here.

So, my preliminary thoughts are: if it’s close here in TX, I’ll vote Obama. If it’s not, I’ll vote Nader - which will really be a vote in support of the multi-party system. Only time will tell and with a primary season so cattywampus, who the hell knows what’s going to happen in the general?!

Used paperback copies of The Audacity of Hope are only $7.89 on Amazon right now. Score.

Let’s Talk Scott McClellan

I waited to comment on the whole Benedict McClellan issue until I seen a few of his interviews and how the media reacted and, I have to say, I’m disappointed in our journalistic brethren - but when am I not, really? He’ll be on Hardball later today and I’ll watch that without expectation that Chris Matthews will somehow cunningly extract new revelations from our little Texas pudge muffin.

One of the most important, yet eentzy facts when addressing What Happened? has only reached my ears once amid the media and political brouhaha the book has stirred. He repeatedly says he’s from a political family and, as a Texas resident, allow me to offer you a little history. His mother is Carol Keeton Strayhorn, a well-known politician in our state having served as first female mayor of state capital Austin, state comptroller of public accounts, as well as the first woman on the Texas Railroad Commission (which largely regulates the oil and gas industry) and, lastly, having run for governor in our last election. She started out as a Democrat (most rural Oklahomans and Texans are old-school Democrats from the times before the parties swapped demographics decades ago), but caught up with the times and became Republican in the 80’s. Recently, she opted to break from the state Republican party, who currently suckles at the teat of Gov. Rick Perry (Bush’s Lt. Governor and arguably one of the worst governors in TX history) and register her gubernatorial campaign under the Independent banner. She claimed she wanted to set partisan politics aside. Now we’ve been hearing that theme from her son as one of the main reasons he served Bush and continued to serve Bush while disagreeing with him on weighted issues such as the war of choice that has developed into the quagmire of Iraq.

I’m not questioning the sincerity of their claims of detestation of the partisan politics - in fact, I’m glad to see long-established Republicans breaking from the good ‘ol boy system we have in Texas. However, those in search of an understanding of the motivations behind What Happened? as well as McClellan’s seemingly openness to an Obama vote must look to his status as mamma’s boy, rather than as former press secretary for Bush.

(that’s scott on the left - found the photo in The Austin Chronicle)

One of the assertions I have found helpful in my few efforts to understand Scott McClellan is that he was misused as press secretary and simply wasn’t a good candidate for the position. I concur. Having watched many of his press conferences, his inability to communicate effectively with the press corps and adversarial relationship with it made it painful to watch as he inartfully dodged question after question. Robert Draper, author of Dead Certain (I’ll submit a review of this book soon), characterized Scott McClellan as, “looking like nothing so much as a terrified if well-fed koala bear as he peered out from behind the press room podium and recited his message lines as if at gunpoint.”

While it is true the administration simply used the position of press secretary as merely a buffer from the intrusion of the media and not as a way to effectively reach the American people, Scott still clearly misunderstood the priority of the podium. He repeatedly, almost certainly, used plausible deniability as a justification not to push for information from the administration and clearly underestimated his responsibility as message-deliverer. While he states in his book that Bush convinces himself of whatever he needs to in order to stick to his guns, Scott obviously did so as well.

The mere fact that there is so much “pot calling the kettle black” in this book is quite unsettling. Also, upon hearing the style of speech and grammatical mistakes in McClellan’s interviews, I am almost positive he used a ghostwriter as the quotations I’ve read from the book are incredibly poignant and well-written. Many people write much better than they speak (especially with the help of an editor) and it is not a huge deal to use a ghostwriter, but it is an issue I think he should address in his media campaign. While many of these memoirs use ghostwriters, I doubt Dee Dee Myers, George Stephanopolous, Doug Feith or Ari Fleischer relied so heavily on someone else’s pen. As a writer, I feel this makes a difference in the sincerity of the book.

I do agree that Scott McClellan should have had the fortitude of character to leave the administration, or raise his voice, if he felt so out-of-step with the direction toward warfare Bush and Cheney so vehemently veered. Having not done so, the publishing of his critical memoir before the exit of Bush (and I’m no fan of the guy) is questionable. Obviously, he’s angry about the whole Plame debacle, as well he should be. But his memoir delivers no new evidence of the wrong-doings by the snakes in the White House. It’s simply a case of too little, too late, bubba. Anti-climactic and irrelevant.

The reaction out of the administration and its former members is so paltry and fake, however, it only lends credence to the memoir itself. Even those no longer in the employ of the administration stuck to the set talking points so deliberately, they should have just put Perino’s comments on replay. The reaction, no doubt planned during the month the White House had access to the memoir before its existence was leaked, only issued meager character assassinations of Scott rather than refuted a single fact in the book. Gag.

The subject is a tired one and won’t remain in the top news categories much longer, if it still is. I have no idea where Scott goes from here besides aiding his mother’s possible run for Austin mayor next year. It’s still undecided if he’d be an asset to anybody at this point.

I suppose I’m glad Scott decided to write openly about his misgivings during his tenure in the Bush administration. Better late than never. This however, shouldn’t be a celebration for us lefties, but more a sad realization that the plague of acquiescence in the government during run up to the Iraq War has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, untold collateral damages as illustrated in the rise of commodity prices, and should never, ever be duplicated by anybody in the government or military claiming to have a spine and the ability to reason.

Reaction to DNC Rules Committee Meeting

Damn.

That was AWESOME! They should televise all these political committee meetings. Especially so we voters can see first-hand when we’re getting screwed. This time, however, I thought the DNC Rules Committee did a good job with the task they were given. Hell, it was better than the Super bowl for us political junkies.

Michigan/New Hampshire Squabble

Let me say first I learned an extremely important historical fact that altered my opinion of the Michigan Primary leapfrog and I wish I had known it sooner. Senator Levin, speaking on behalf of Michigan explained that back in 2004, the DNC Rules Committee decided that New Hampshire would go third in the primary schedule and the second spot would rotate among the states. According to Levin, New Hampshire decided they would not abide by these rules, as you can view here, and scheduled their primary in the second primary position. From what I have researched, in 2006, the DNC Rules Committee recommended New Hampshire hold their primary January 22, 2008 and Nevada take the number 2 spot by holding their caucus January 19. Obviously, New Hampshire decided it did not have to follow DNC recommendations and did whatever their politically privileged little hearts desired.

This is extremely important. New Hampshire received a waiver from the DNC and was allowed to sidestep the “rules” - which angered Michigan who then opted to advance their primary anyway. Well, obviously, with the machine politics that somehow inserts itself into our system and poisons the well of sincere democracy, the DNC - probably not wanting to encourage primary scheduling chaos - refused an egalitarian solution to the issue and banished Michigan to the netherworld of irrelevancy whilst grabbing their ankles and giving spoiled little New Hampshire their second place lest Concord pitch a grand mal and thrust the party into primary warfare that could allow the Republicans to ride the wave back into the White House.

Got it? Didn’t think so. It’s all very tawdry and shameful and undemocratic - which is what you get when you refuse to support a viable multi-party system and cede our government to big-government Democrats or Corporatocracy-Republicans.

In any case, I found myself having much more sympathy with Michigan today than I did yesterday. However, I still agree with the punishments meted out by the DNC Rules Committee to Michigan and Florida because one simply cannot have states running around willy-nilly, flotsam-jetsam setting their primaries whenever they may.

Primary Scheduling

Obviously, someone needs to be the voice of reason in this whole clusterf*#k and I kindly offer myself up for such a position - even though I am not a Democrat (I research all candidates and tend to vote all over the place and am, therefore, Independent).

1. Move all primaries back to March. It is ridiculous to have the primaries sneaking up every election season, lengthening the campaign season and wasting hundreds of millions of dollars when people should be saving for their retirement or their children’s college educations rather than donating to lost-cause campaigns. Some of you may think the Democrat Party would do themselves a disservice by moving their primaries back and allowing the Republicans to hold their primaries first. I disagree. Without doubt, this prolonged Democratic primary season has kept John McCain largely on the second-page of the news cycle. This would continue to happen as coverage follows the Democratic primaries, the lone Republican candidate is forgotten. Yay.

2. Rotate the schedule among the states so that each year, states take a different place of influence on the calendar. To give Iowa and New Hampshire the position of privilege every year is at most undemocratic and at the least illogical and beyond reason.

3. All primaries must be primaries. None of the caucus bullscheiβe! Old people, people who are working, etc. cannot attend caucuses and cannot have their voices heard through their presence. Either have a mail-in vote (sketchy) or have an ID-required vote. That is the best way to ensure democracy is actual and we are not hypocritical in our claim of having the best electoral system (although, we are anyway because of the presence of the electoral college).

Basic Reaction to the DNC Rules Committee Meeting Itself

Allow me to preface this section by saying that due to the Saturday designation of the meeting, I missed all that happened before 11:30 a.m. and didn’t catch any of the debate regarding the Florida situation. I heard it was good, though. Also, because they came back so late from lunch and I ate a huge one myself, I missed a bit of the debate before the Florida vote. Whatever.

Best line of the day: Carl Levin quoting Will Rogers, “I belong to no organized party. I’m a Democrat.” Hear! Hear! Well said.

Former Michigan Governor Blanchard, when addressing the rules committee on behalf of Sen. Clinton, was way annoying in his intro. I mean, here they are trying to decide how naughty Michigan was and he has to take up all this time talking about how he was raised by a single mother. What???? Exit stage left, guv. jeez.

Michigan and Florida peeps keep claiming the voters have been punished enough. How have they been punished? By having national media attention heaped on the ineptitude of their states’ party leadership? Give me a break. Now, if they had each been tasered when they entered the voting booth, we could talk about how they’ve been punished. Politically, I would equate the last four months as a day at the spa for those leap-froggers.

Um…Can anyone tell me why there aren’t young people on the rules committee? Yeah, yeah, I saw a few members that were probably in their 40’s. But, I’m 30, so 40 is old and if they want to be appropriately representative of the U.S. demographic, there definitely needed to be more Hispanics, more Asians, and more young people, yo! I’m sure it wouldn’t be hard to find a young, deserving sprite with an intelligent opinion. For real!

Lastly, did anyone catch those Hillary protesters?! I’m embarrassed. I really am. Seriously, they were all white, female and over 50. It was ubiquitous jiggles as they raised their hands in the air and chanted “Denver! Denver!” First of all, yawn. Second of all, come up with a better slogan, like “The Committee Sucks!” or “Michigan Rules!” or, my personal favorite, “Your mother is a whore!” And, at the end, there were only about 25 of these menopausal renegades left standing at the base of the escalator shouting and watching as no one paid attention to them. Babes, you picked the wrong horse. You chose a candidate that matched your demographic rather than one with character and good judgement. Face the music and eat shit. Is that harsh? Hmmm. Somehow, I don’t care.

Really, though. Even if Clinton appeals the decision and takes it further, she will still lose. Even if hell freezes over and the DNC seats Michigan in full as the votes were cast in the primary - which they shouldn’t - she would still lose. But hey, way to divide the party and anger Democrat voters so they can’t rally around Obama the way they want. Way to distract Obama from his real task of kicking McCain’s ass. Way to place personal ambition over national progress. Way to go, Hillary. You’re hypocritical, dishonorable and, more than anything, you have a mullet. Go away. Really, just go.

Well, GREAT Saturday! One of the best Saturdays ever. They need to televise these meeting more often. It’s time for a margarita and, being from Texas, throwin some ribs on the grill! Yeeee-friggin-haw, people!

(and i don’t give a shit what my teacher-sister says, I am NOT checking my spelling on this blog. it’s party time)

Recommended: An Unreasonable Man

“An Unreasonable Man” is a documentary of Ralph Nader’s life and pursuits and a must-see for any informed voter this election season. The film captures a fairly objective history of Nader’s endeavors, still portraying the consumer activist in a positive light. I must say, I learned quite a bit - though I hit the pause button many times to discuss with my fiancé the merits of certain postulations, actions and opinions presented. The words from Pat Benatar’s “All Fired Up” give a fairly good description of our spirited debates. He had to tell me to stop “yelling” a few times, but the documentary made me want to strangle more than a few people at the upper echelons (past and present) of both America’s corporate and political universes.

Whether you agree with the man’s decisions or not, want to support the multi-party system in America, feel embittered by his inclusion in the 2000 Presidential race, are a head-up-your-ass staunch conservative or bleeding-heart liberal, this is an at-times riveting and interesting reflection of a controversial, controlling man with good intentions who has benefited American society in more than a few vastly significant ways.

You certainly won’t be a lesser person for having watched “An Unreasonable Man” and will probably learn quite a bit. I simply can’t recommend it enough.

Nader’s In - Suck It, Bitter Democrats

Nader, as we thought he would, announced on “Meet The Press” yesterday that he would enter the 2008 presidential race. Here’s the transcript - it was a good show.

While he will meet a lot of opposition from Democrats who feel as if he “stole” the election from Gore in 2000, I happen to think his presidential endeavors - though predictably fruitless - increase the democratic health of this country. Even the whirlpool of poor judgment Goober Bush’s presidency has been does not preclude the benefits Nader brings by running as a third ticket. Nader says he received quite a few Republican votes that year as well - and I agree that it is far from conclusive his participation in that election kept Gore from The White House. Gore acted like dick during that campaign and he deserved to lose it. VP’s cannot behave as though it is their inalienable right to be president and shun the very president who gave them their VP post in the first place. And that’s the tip of the ice burg when it comes to reasons Gore was not the 43rd president.

Furthermore, the Republican and Democratic parties own the U.S.’ political system and their corruption and poor behavior are frequently intertwined into a single motivation to lengthen careers and increase power. What have the democrats accomplished since taking Congress back? Certainly not pressuring Bush to scale the war back - in fact, he achieved a surge in troop levels under their watch. Have they launched any significant investigations against the impeachable president and his V.P.? Not at all! Sure, they helped bring about Gonzales’ ouster, but who gives a crap? Mukasey won’t even say whether waterboarding is illegal or not - talk about worthless yes men! Congress’ approval rating is in the outhouse and they’re hardly more beneficial than the rubber stamp Congress that preceded them.

It has long been time for third-party candidates to raise their voice. Ceding power to two political parties handicaps our ability to participate in this representative government and demand they represent our best interests. More choice means a healthier democracy. I’m not delusional enough to think Nader could win the election (unlike the Ron Paul suckers), but he just might get my vote on principal. The simple back and forth negotiating between Republicans and Democrats has created a quagmire of corruption and inefficacy that bleeds power to the mega-corps who really run the country today. I don’t want to participate in that.

If you’re still upset Nader’s entering the race, give a good research to the guy and take a hard look at his past. You might find something you like and can get behind. Haha. I said “behind.”

Bring it Nader! Bring it good!

Limbaugh Craziness & Members of Congress Under Investigation

If I decided to post all the insane shite Limbaugh disgorged on his show, I’d be busy from now until his train reaches it’s final destination of Satanville.

In any case, I’m posting these words from yesterday because I don’t know how many of you are located in the South and understand the Republican mentality down here - at least, the old school mentality. Many of the older members of my extended family, who are straight-ticket Republicans who would rather suck on a tail pipe than vote Democrat, feel exactly like this:

“The story is that this paper endorsed McCain, sat on this story and now puts it out just prior to McCain wrapping up the nomination. And McCain says he’s disappointed. Why? Why is anybody disappointed or surprised but [sic] this? They are who they are. A snake is a snake. A tiger is a tiger. The New York Times is the New York times. Folks, if you expect me to be angry about the story and angry at the New York Times, you have tuned to the wrong radio show. I refuse to get mad when something I have predicted is going to happen, happens. I refuse to get mad when something I know is true, is true. It is a total waste of energy.

The important question for John McCain today is, is he going to learn the right lesson from this, and what is the lesson? The lesson is liberals are to be defeated. You cannot walk across the aisle with them. You cannot reach across the aisle. You cannot welcome their media members on your bus and get all cozy with them and expect eternal love from them. You are a Republican. Whether you’re a conservative Republican or not, you are a Republican. At some point, the people you cozy up to, either to do legislation or to get cozy media stories, are going to turn on you. They are snakes. If the right lesson is not learned from this, then it will have proved to be of no value. There’s a great opportunity here for Senator McCain to learn the right lesson and understand who his friends are and who his enemies are. He’s had that backwards for way too long. He has thought the New York Times is his friend. He has thought Chris Matthews and these other people in the Drive-By Media are his friends. They aren’t. That’s the lesson today.” - Rush Limbaugh, 2/21/2008

That’s right. Democrats are snakes. Democrats. That’s how the old school Repubs feel here in the South. Those who are in or near my generation are much more open to cooperation and also tend to vote less straight-ticket than the seniors. This gives me a sense that the ugly, extreme partisanship “you’re either with us or against us” attitude is becoming a relic of the past. We’re just so sick of it - which is why Independent numbers are growing.

And, as for the Democrats are snakes comment, here is a count of Congressional Members under investigation. Let’s count. 19 Republicans. In fact, Renzi was indicted this morning. How many Democrats? Oh yeah, 5. Now, of course it sucks that any amount of political leaders might behave unethically, but hellooooooooo - Repubs seem way more naughty than Dems. So, who are snakes? I’m going to try and find numbers on actual indictments on political leaders as well.

So, FYI, old school southern Republicans are crizazy - just like Rush Limbaugh is. And they probably dislike McCain enough to keep their freaky asses at home November 4. Maybe. I won’t say hopefully because I believe EVERYBODY should vote, but it’s something for pundits to take into consideration and anyone who plans to put money on the presidential race.

BTW, even if McCain continues his cow towing to the insane Right base, it only solidifies his flip-flopping past Romney proportions and gives Obama (or Clinton, but probably not) more ammunition during the run-up to the general election.

Dems Cracking Down on Pharmaceutical Companies - Commentary on Republican Aiding of Big Corporations

While this just might be political payback - after all, Edwards kept accusing Obama and Clinton of taking contributions from big drug companies - but, either way, Democrats in Congress have launched investigations into pharmaceutical corporation’s behaviors regarding Medicare, television advertising and the drug approval process. I for one, am thrilled. The pharmaceutical companies committed many transgressions under the approval of the Republican Congress.

Political philosophy has long held the belief that a vote for a Democrat means a vote for bigger, more powerful government. And this may be true (though not under Bush, who has expanded governmental powers above and beyond what any democrat could have ever gotten away with). The philosophy that a vote for a Republican will result in smaller government. Hmmm. That might be so, but instead of the powerful government you get with Democrats, you get powerful corporations with Republicans. And that is not good for the everyday American.

The pharmaceutical industry is simply one example of the havoc unregulated companies and industries can wreak on Joe Schmo. Just this past Sunday, 60 Minutes offered a report on the deaths caused by Bayer’s Trasylol each month due to the FDA’s unwilling to pull the drug that is 200 times more expensive than other drugs that are just as effective and don’t lead to renal failure and death.

Drug companies have armies of lobbyists who push the approval of drugs onto the public without effective clinical trials, who push for the approval of the use of adult cold medicines and antibiotics for children with no testing on children, who lobby doctors incessantly to prescribe chemicals for people for the slightest ailment and questionable diagnosis. Has anyone ever considered depression to be a developed-world condition and perhaps a visit to Sierra Leone or a labor camp in China or regular exercise might help to alleviate the symptoms rather than a myriad of tablets and pills? Just wondering…

Furthermore, and this is a comment on the free-market ideals of all the Ron Paulies out there, pharmaceutical companies control the patents on their drugs for years and can assign any cost they choose to life-saving medication. Customers simply cannot wander over to another drug company if they are unhappy with the services provided by the makers of Drug X.

Corporations collude, they merge, they control prices when unregulated. The free-market ideals introduced by Adam Smith and others that came during the Industrial Age in their purity do not apply in today’s setting. Pure theories, such as Communism, Capitalism and Socialism fail when taking into account the human psyche and cognitive dissonance. A balance must be struck. And the Republicans certainly are not willing to attempt such an endeavor. And so, we have unregulated industries.

The oil industry, with its record profits soaring - along with the prices of consumer goods; the airline industry, with its delays, overcrowding, and mass consumer disapproval; out-of-control lenders with their adjustable-rate-mortgages preying on subprime borrowers; dangerous toys from China making their way to kids’ mouths; CEOs with bonuses in the tens of millions while bottom-level employees can’t afford healthcare; monolithic corporate mergers; insurance companies that won’t pay their customers’ claims; the list goes on an on.

Personally, I’d rather a vote for bigger government. With a vote, I still have the power over who has the power. With a corporatocracy, I have no control over board-room deals that dictate my expenditures and consumer choices.

I do not prefer the idea of government regulation of our life, such as media censorship, but I choose react to the political reality of today, rather than the political ideal of what is supposed to be. The result of a Republican vote no longer means limited government, if it ever did. Republicans limit government when it comes to corporate behavior, not citizen behavior.

If it were up to Republicans, government would have greater control over what we do and don’t teach our kids in schools (creationism, abstinence) with very detrimental consequences. If it were up to Republicans, the government would control our decision to have an abortion. If it were up to Republicans, we would be much more concerned with NFL coaches destroying tapes of opposing teams’ play signals than the destroying of the CIA tapes and much more concerned with a boob shown during the Superbowl than genocide in Darfur. If it were up to Republicans, the concentration of executive powers acquired under Bush would remain, thwarting the effort of checks and balances intended by the founding fathers. If it were up to Republicans, government would launch a massive effort to criminalize undocumented workers in this country, going against the very foundations of our country’s greatness. Small government? Whatever!

We have a reality that must be recognized. Political party philosophies no longer apply to political party behavior. It is a shame we do not have a greater choice in the political parties to whom we may assign our votes. Given the two we got, however, I’m going with the Democrat. Because, in reality, with the Democrats, I stand a much better chance at determining the situations which affect my life rather than ceding them to Republican power whores and their corporate pimps.

HE’S BAAAAaaaack!

Who is back? Who you say?

NADER!!!!

According to The Boston Globe, Ralph launched an exploratory committee website Jan. 30 in his efforts to decide whether to enter the presidential campaign. He launched a lawsuit against the Democratic National Party back in October, naming, among other evildoers, Terry McAuliffe, who is now chairman of the Hillary Clinton for President committee.

I’m always in support of more candidates getting in the presidential race and have considered sending persuasive letters to Bloomberg for his inclusion. The debate and dialog are so much richer and in-depth when thinkers of various ilks throw their lot into the race. Especially Independents.

The devolution of the two-party system has reduced the efficacy of our government on all levels as candidates sell their loyalties and congressional/judicial/gubernatorial votes to the highest bidder. The two-party system is what allowed Gingrich and Delay to create the most corrupt and despicable Congress of all the ages.

The Republican and Democrat parties have outlived their usefulness, if they ever had any. I say come one Independent, come all!