Let the Tax Cuts Expire

Mr. President,

I'm a middle class taxpayer. I appreciate that you, Mr. Biden, and most of the Democrats in Congress have done to help stabilize the economy. I truly believe you are trying to work the best possible solution you can. However, I severely disagree with extending the Bush tax cuts for all, and would be willing to sacrifice additional money out of my pocket if it meant securing a longer term victory here.

I'm aware the situation looks bad. Conservative Democrats and the Republicans have done their best to back you into a corner to support extending those irresponsible tax cuts. You're humbled by the results from November 2, and feel that maybe the Republicans have a point. Also, you feel throwing out the middle cut tax cuts just because the rich get to keep theirs is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water. I can see your point, and in some ways can see the validity of this decision.

However, that doesn't change the fact that these tax cuts are irresponsible. At a time when sooo many people are running around yelling about OMGZ!!!! TEH DEFICIT OMGZ!!!, they don't seem to care about ending one of the biggest causes of that deficit: a stupid tax cut rammed through by President Bush in the middle of a long and expensive conflict.

Use your constitutional prerogative, and let these tax cuts expire. Will you be excoriated by The Village? Probably. Will tea partiers and Fox News sluts and Evan Bayh say mean things about you? Yeah. Of course, its not like these things don't happen already, even when you did cut taxes. The stimulus package was heavy on tax cuts, but that didn't prevent 90% of Americans from realizing that you had actually cut their taxes. They'll think you are a tax and spend liberal no matter what you do, so show real leadership, and take on Boehner and his friends on this one.

The only reason why this wouldn't be a good idea is if Congress shows a likelihood of overriding your veto. And maybe that's why Axelrod sent up the white flag in his interview. I hope not, because that shows Congress has completely given into ignorance, and the path to recovery grows ever dimmer.

But failing that scenario, pick a fight with the GOP (and the Conservative Democrats) on this one. Take your case to the American people, and accept that some may hate you, if only for a while. Make the GOP own the situation, and pressure them to come to the table to work out real tax reform that truly benefits the middle class.

Leadership is oftentimes about seizing the moment, zigging when conventional wisdom says you zag. You understood that during your campaign, but at times seem to have forgotten that while in the White House, focusing on smaller technical things, rather than the bigger picture. You stood up and did the right thing regarding the AIG bonuses, as bad for PR as that decision was. I am confident you know what you are doing, but hope I am missing something if you fail to take this opportunity.

Where do We Go From Here?

You'd think tonight's address by the President about the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom would be a reason to celebrate. After all, it is the result those of us who opposed this action since 2003 have been looking for. Even with 50,000 "advisers", plus thousands of contractors, left in Iraq, it should be a victory for us.

However, I can't take solace in this milestone. At best it is just a partial correction of one of our nation's biggest foreign policy blunder, another step on the long road to atonement. At worst its just a way for us to escape the situation before it collapses like Saigon in 1975. This small piece of good news is dwarfed by the fears of another recession, an absolutely dreadful employment picture, and the toxic sludge of an overheated political environment. And oh yeah, we're still stuck in a dire situation in Afghanistan, the "good" war that we had supposedly won when we started the "adventure" in Iraq.

When Obama was elected in November 2008, I thought we had won a great victory. When Keith Olbermann announced Obama was projected to go above 270, the pop-culture romantic in me viewed the moment like it was the scene in Return of the King where Gandalf reacts to The One Ring being destroyed. It truly felt like the battle had been won.

Instead, it was a deceptive moment. The battle hadn't been won, but rather had just begun. Like it or not, the other side wasn't going to accept the inevitability of a new era of responsible governance tilted to the left. Nor were they going to reassess their party and return to the roots of Lincoln and Roosevelt. Instead, the GOP noise machine led by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh amped up the crazy, and the inmates took over the asylum. Relatively sensible Republicans, such as Charlie Crist, were chased out of the party in favor of radicals such as Marco Rubio and Sharon Angle. Realizing they were fighting for survival of their cult of Reaganomics, they dug in and decided to gum up the Senate with petty politics.

The President and the Democrats in Congress have done a lot. They've passed bills, imperfect though they may be, that are trying to fix our nation's health care and financial messes. Roads and infrastructure across the country have benefited from a necessary, if too small, stimulus package. Things have been accomplished, despite the cries on DailyKos and firedoglake to the contrary.

Despite these victories, the Democrats are poised to get their asses kicked come November. Some of the most pessimistic predictions state that both the House and Senate will fall back into the hands of the Republicans. Personally, I think the Democrats will maintain their majorities, albeit with much smaller margins. Of course, some of those new Republicans may be folks like Sharon Angle.

Personally, I think this all goes back to the fact that Democrats in Congress seem almost apologetic that they are Democrats. They should be trumpeting the virtues of Health Care and Financial Regulation, instead of sheepishly admitting they voted for these. If they voted for these policies, they should own them. Its time to go on the offensive, and not just pointing out that your party is less dangerous than the other one. I know it seems counter-intuitive to champion that which is unpopular, but it is partially unpopular because the message was dictated by the opposition. The only way to cut through that cloud is to attack it.

I'm aware I haven't done as much as I should have. Sitting here writing blog posts does little to advance the cause. I've donated a few bucks here and there to some candidates and groups like Emily's List, but have yet to volunteer to help build on that 2008 victory. I intend to do something about that, and will let you know what that is.

We are stuck in a drop-down, drag-out battle for the soul of this country. If we don't want the Michele Bachmanns and Sarah Palins and Marco Rubios running this country, we better get to work. Even if November results in a defeat for us, we must continue the fight. So to answer the question posed by the title of the article, we will walk through the fire, ever forward, tough though it may be.

Why Gay Marriage Should Be Legal

I will say it now and unequivocally: I am a strong proponent of gay marriage. There is no good reason for it not to be legal, and is not legal due to a media and political culture built on hating "them", and a mixture of political cowardice and realism from those who are more friendly to the GLBT community.

I just cannot see how anyone who truly believes in love or the value of marriage would deny it to others. Look at it through the eyes of a parent, how could you deny your son or daughter the ability to be happy, to be treated like the human and American citizen they are, with all rights and responsibilities that entitles them to? The thought that hate and ignorance would blind you to putting yourself in the shoes of those wishing to get married is beyond me.

I'm aware that you might stand pat on this issue because an ancient book has a few lines of scripture against homosexuality. I'm sure you keep sabbath, ritually butcher your meat, and feel slavery is OK, right? Believing in the legal right of homosexuals to enter into the mutual business partnership that is marriage is compatible with not sanctifying the marriage in your church. If two men wish to make their commitment legal, that has little to do with how God will deal with their lives. To me this smacks of determining the works of God, and thus is attempting to explain the unexplainable.

But won't this lead to ghost/horse marriage, or the legalization of polygamy? Of course not, don't be thick. Those of us on the left of this issue don't quibble over the number allowed in the partnership, just the gender of the parties. The idea that giving those nice next door neighbors who own the antique shop the right to marriage would lead to Mr. Ed and Rick Santorum getting hitched is just ridiculous.

Nevertheless, I understand the reality of the political situation that has kept Democrats from acting on this. The other side seems to be doing an excellent job of fomenting misinformation, and are passionate in their misguided beliefs. To reach too far on this issue risked a major backlash, and not just by Republicans. There has been more support of civil unions, mainly because it defuses the emotional power and resonance of "marriage". Still, its not the same thing, and amounts to "separate but equal".

Before Prop 8 passed in 2008, it appeared things were changing for the better. While things are getting better (DADT might finally die its well-deserved death), the fight is far from over. Those who are against the rights of our homosexual friends are powerful, passionate, and eager to fight that which frightens (and confuses) them. The best way for us to succeed is getting like minded individuals elected to our state and Federal legislatures.

Mr. Olbermann, please read up on Your Civil War History

Dear Mr. Olbermann,

Although I think you made some good points in your Special Comment tonight, you really goofed up on your Civil War History. John Pope did not replace George McClellan atop the Union Army after Antietam. Here are the ways that is incorrect:

1) After Antietam, McClellan was replaced by Ambrose Burnside, not John Pope. Pope was on his way to the frontier of Minnesota by that time, as he had lost the disastrous battle of 2nd Manassas.

2) When Pope was brought East, he wasn't technically replacing McClellan. They both had independent commands. Effectively Pope's command became the primary focus of maneuvers against the Army of Northern Virginia, and he was bolstered by plenty of McClellan's troops. After Lee, Longstreet, Jackson and their troops humiliated Pope, McClellan regained control of the theater.

3) The battle of Antietam was not a "disaster". It was a strategic victory for the Union that was tactically a draw. True, it is arguable that had McClellan sent in the V Corps in the center of the line, they might have won a victory. However, that is a debatable point, and is hardly a disaster. Lincoln didn't remove McClellan because of the result of the battle, he removed McClellan because he refused to move against Lee before winter would shut down campaigning.

I know your point didn't care about the success of Pope, but it wasn't the best example. Pope was an awful general, and Lincoln's aides were right to be skeptical. I suppose Joe Hooker, who had his own little controversy over civilian control of the military when he was named to replace Ambrose Burnside, would be a better example. In that case Lincoln kept him on the job after his comments about the necessity of a military dictator, while chastising him for those words.

You are better than that, Mr. Olbermann. What's more, YOU KNOW YOU ARE BETTER THAN THAT.

Its been 1,592 days since something happened 1,592 days ago. Good night and good luck. Don't stay tuned for the Rachel Maddow Show, as she is on MSNBC and not this infrequently updated blog.

A Very Controversial Comic

WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING

BELOW THIS MESSAGE IS A VERY CONTROVERSIAL COMIC.











I WARNED YOU....











TURN AWAY IF YOU WISH...








HERE IT IS. DON'T SAY I DIDN'T WARN YOU.










OMG, did I just do that?

Man, that was so controversial.

On Memorializing the Largest Insurrection in the History of the United States

"As governor of Virginia, I declare April to be American Civil War History Month. The American Civil War is our nation's great tragedy, a terrible conflict that left our state and our nation in tatters. To understand the Commonwealth of Virginia you must understand the causes, events, and consequences of that brutal affair. "

That's all Governor McDonnell had to say to make his recent proclamation relevant, helpful, and non-controversial. Instead he chose to name the month Confederate History Month, which is most controversial. At best it was a horribly misguided attempt by a governor to score points with his political base. At worst it was the intentional perpetuation of the "The Lost Cause", a nod to the fact that he felt the wrong side one at Appomattox.

I'm not here as an "Enlightened" Yankee trying to show how much better than he is than those damn Southerners. The Union states weren't much better than Southern states in regards to racial equality, and many in the North certainly profited from the slave-based southern economy. For the reprehensible Jim Crow laws in the south, the north had plenty of their own shameful acts (Sunset Laws, Black Laws, etc...). One cannot forget some of the harshest racism this side of Mississippi during the Civil Rights era took place in Chicago and Boston. No part of this country is excused from the dark parts of our history.

Before I go any further, however, I must state that slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War. Sure, the conversation can be much more complicated, incorporating minute and archaic debates of state rights, tariffs, and the Industrial Revolution. The fact still remains all of those arguments are related to the fact that the South was built upon a land heavy, cash light economy that worked solely because of slave labor. Every one of the other issues exclusive of slavery would never have led to war.

While the U.S. Constitution never mentioned slavery by name, the Confederate constitution made sure it wasn't ambiguous on the subject, most explicitly in the following text:

"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed [by Congress]"

Other than making the presidency a six year single term, and giving the president a line item veto, this was the largest difference between it and the U.S. Constitution. Slavery was essential to the the existence of the Confederacy, and to argue otherwise is wrong. Sure, some southerners such as Patrick Cleburne suggested enlisting slaves in exchange for their freedom. However, the policy didn't gain any steam in the Richmond until the desperate end of the war.

I don't doubt that there were plenty of people who fought in the South who didn't give a damn about the slaves. I am aware that people in those days viewed themselves as Virginians, Alabamans, or Georgians first, and Americans second. In their mind they weren't committing treason, and may have considered those (like George Thomas) who chose country over state to be the true traitors. That doesn't change the fact that secession has been determined to be illegal, and against the nature of this country. Its treason, through and through. Even if the difference between treason and fighting for freedom is which side won.

I also don't believe that those who fought in gray, even many of those who were generals, were not evil people, even if they had wrong beliefs. It cannot be denied that thousands of soldiers from Texas to Virginia were honorable soldiers who committed many acts of valor. To paraphrase General Grant they fought very well for a cause they believed in, even though that cause was certainly wrong. It was right to treat them honorably after their surrender at Appomattox, as they were, and still are, our countrymen.

Unfortunately, too many Southerners took the benevolence of Northerners to be an admission that the Confederacy was right, and that things could go back to the antebellum state of the region. Some, like James Longstreet took the right approach. Others, such as the founders of the Ku Klux Klan, clearly felt they hadn't lost. Some headway was made during Reconstruction, but it all unraveled as the troops moved out, and Jim Crow came into play. For the next eighty or ninety years, the bulk of American historians seemed to buy this view as well, at the expense of the freemen.

Thus the disgusting cockroach of a myth known as the Lost Cause became intertwined in the South. The myth that the North didn't win, it just smothered the Confederacy with carpetbags and Springfield rifles was perpetuated, and states in Dixie celebrated memorial days for the Confederacy. You can bet a fifth grade class in Huntsville, Alabama had a different "education" about the Civil War than one in Champaign, Illinois. Movies like Birth of a Nation (that nation isn't the reunified United States) and Gone with the Wind pined for the lost south of plantations and balls, and excoriated those awful "carpetbaggers" and "black Republicans" who ruined their fun.

Fortunately, with the Civil Rights movement came a more realistic approach to the history of the Civil War. Of course, with this shift in historical focus came a reaction that clung, and still clings, hard to the myths of the past. Organizations like the Confederate Sons of America have done their damn best to make sure their version of the history remains intact, and far too many Americans (including a disturbing amount of Northerners) fly the rebel battle flag proudly.

Let me be clear that I am saying the faults and atrocities of the Union should be ignored. The hell of Camp Douglas should be remembered as much as Andersonville. There is no problem remembering the tenacity of the troops in Pickett's Charge, or remembering how well your great great grandfather fought at Chickamauga. Want to show his rifle or pistol in your den in remembrance of him? Fine.

All I am saying is remember the entirety of the story. Remember the sacrifices and struggles of those who fought for the preservation of our union. Remember the valor of the men who made that charge at Marye's Heights, and the heroism of the Iron Brigade at Gettysburg. Remember the struggle of African Americans, both free and slave, who fought and struggled for their freedom from that most undemocratic institution. Most of all, remember the horrors of the Shiloh, Antietam, and the Spotsylvania, and make sure that tragedy doesn't repeat itself.

I have no doubt the right side won the Civil War. A strong and united country stretching from Maine to Florida, Massachusetts to California is much better than the alternative. Had the Confederacy won its freedom, whether in September 1862, July 1863, or August 1864, it wouldn't have been the last war between the two countries. What's worse, the French and the British would have been our enemies instead of our friends, and the world may very well have been a much meaner place. The thought that I wouldn't be able to visit the Smoky Mountains, or Mississippians wouldn't be able to go to Yellowstone, without a passport and/or visa is not a good thought.

I know the vast majority of Americans also believe in the strength of our union. Sure, a few whackjobs still believe that their state should secede (not all of them in the south), but they still remain on the fringe. Of course, the Teabaggers in some states have jumped up the rhetoric, with even some prominent Republicans (see Rick Perry) supporting secession in some hypothetical future. However, I believe that most Americans aren't willing to begin another Civil War. At least they would if they know the story of our first Civil War. Promoting the history of our nation's most traumatic event is a noble and laudable goal. However, limiting it to that one misguided side is neither noble nor laudable. Its beneath any American, whether they live in Richmond, VA, or Washington, DC.

John McCain Threatens to Take his Ball and Go Home

John McCain and his "reasonable" GOP friends have decided to roll up the welcome mat on working with President Obama and the Democrats in Congress. Why? Because the Democratic majority in both houses, and the Democratic President used their constitutional prerogative to pass the largest health care reform bill since Medicare. I suppose passing a moderate, sensible bill that is chock full of ideas Republicans have liked and suggested in the past now counts as a thwarting of the will of the people (despite very mixed evidence at best). Therefore, despite some Democrats bending over backwards to appease some Republicans, the so called "maverick" is going to put petty politics above legitimate governing. I'm not surprised, considering his complete abandonment of his "maverickness" in 2008.

The fact is, time and time again, Democrats from Max Baucus to Harry Reid to President Obama have gladly shown a willingness to work with Republicans. Unfortunately, the Republicans decided back when Obama took office to be the party of "NO". They stomp their feet, spout heinous lies about death panels and socialist plots, and do everything in their power to spit on the other side. When the Democrats get wise, the GOP then bitches about a lack of "bipartisanship", and use their mouthpieces over at Fox to make them look like victims of an evil takeover by SOCIALISTCOMMUNOFASCIAMUSLIMTHUGGISHDEATHPANELERS.

I understand why Republicans wouldn't want the opposition party to be handed victories. I understand the politics of being obstructionist tools. I'm not saying they don't have a right to do that. I just wish they were honest about it. If only because so many people eat up their bullshit like it is cotton candy.

But of course they aren't honest about it, because that would spell doom come November. Like it or not, bipartisanship is a positive word to most people. Nevermind that the GOP flavor of compromise is "screw your beliefs, accept ours and maybe we won't kick you in the nuts". This momentous and sensible reform bill was passed without a single vote by a Republican in the Senate, and only one GOP vote on the initial House bill. Believe me, Obama and company will figure out a way to get other things done while McCain, Graham, and the rest pout like fat spoiled brats who didn't get that third scoop of ice cream.

Go ahead and not work with the Democrats on immigration reform, and get used to losing in New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Arizona. Go ahead and refuse to work on financial reform, and lose your already slipping hold in the rural Midwest. Continue to bitch and moan and not do a damn thing. Let the bible thumpers, the Randites, and the Palinbots run the asylum. Go ahead and force yourself into being the bigoted and pathetic regional party found only in the South. We'll continue working on fixing our problems, and will be glad to share our solutions with you. After all, its only neighborly.

The Sausage Works: Health Care Bills pass the House

The Health Care bill, first passed by the Senate in December, has been passed by the House 219-212. That bill then goes to President Obama. In addition, they've passed the Reconciliation package on to the Senate, with 217 votes currently.

I'll have more to say on this subject later. All I have to say right now is history has once been made, this time historic law. The fight that began with TR and the Progressive movement of the early 20th century has won a major victory. Whether or not the Senate drops the ball on the reconciliation package, health care reform is heading to the White House. It's history, and not a damn Republican has signed on to it.

The Role of Moderates in American Politics

If you get a chance, read this post by Tom Schaller at fivethirtyeight.com about Evan Bayh and the hypocrisy of "moderates" in the Senate. I think it sums up very well the role so-called moderates such as Bayh, Blanche Lincoln, or Joe Lieberman should play in our legislative process. This goes for the guys on the other side of the aisle as well, although they seem to keep their "moderates" in line better, partially because they have far fewer of them.

For what it's worth, I consider myself a moderate. Granted, my idea of moderation sits far to the left of what Susan Collins, Joe Lieberman, or Evan Bayh would call moderation. My views and ideals run well to the left, and on things such as GLBT issues and the first amendment I am very adamant about my positions. However, from an operational standpoint I am flexible on most issues.

What the Republicans seem to understand better than the Democrats is the value of a perception of uniformity. That isn't to say that every body must toe the party line, or not try to influence policy. What it means is that those on the fringes in a party must respect the will of the majority. It is one thing to argue for, and get, concessions or changes to protect your viewpoint or your constituency. It is another thing entirely, however, to expect your position to be the majorities postion, and torpedo their efforts if you don't get your way.

Above all, once a decision has been made, or a bill is in place, it is your job as a moderate to get behind it. Support it enthusiastically yet honestly. Be willing to explain that it isn't your idea of perfect, or possibly even great. But also explain how it is best for the nation at large, while also saying why it helps your constituents. Never go on Meet the Press, Hardball, or any other bloviation station, unless it is to offer your support for the measure. I am sure that if "moderates" such as Joe Lieberman and Blanche Lincoln had taken this approach, real health reform would have been done well before the debacle in Massachusetts happened. Of course, that assumes these senators actually care about real reform, and not just the perception of reform.

To sum it up, a moderates job is not to bend the will of the majority to his point of view, but to smooth out the edges of that majority and stand as a check against government overreach and for transparency. A moderate who calls out his colleagues in public and stands in the way of effective government is not a champion of "bi-partisanship" or "post-partisanship". He's not a profile in courage, or someone to be admired. He is nothing but a hypocritical obstructionist, hell-bent on protecting the interests of his one man party, even at the detriment of his larger party or his nation.

* As if most Democrats in the Senate were wild eyed leftist extremists.

Democracy in Action: Demand Question Time

Last week, President Barack Obama visited the House Republican Conference in Baltimore, Maryland to answer questions. It was an excellent meeting, with mostly thoughtful questions from the representatives, and even more thoughtful answers by the President. It was without soundbites, without too much political preening, and thoroughly refreshing. You can view the remarks at CSPAN.

This is something that shouldn't be rare in a supposedly democratic society. Unfortunately this is not a regular part of Washington life, but hopefully this can change. If you are believer in real change, and a believer in better government, or just a fan of the UK Prime Ministers Question Time, please visit the Demand Question Time website.

As Nate Silver explains in this post about the subject, there are an awful lot of questions about how this would work. I agree that it would need to be random, if only to prevent what happened at Obama's meeting with the Senate Democrats this week. In that meeting, all of the questioners were Senators who just happened to be facing reelection this November. Thus, the questions weren't quite as frank as one would hope, and were far too concerned with politics instead of governance.

Will this become a part of our national calendar? I can't tell. Obviously a lot of powerful people on both sides of the aisle would stand to lose out in this scenario. However, the people that should truly matter, all 300 million plus and counting, would win out big. I figure if it can happen, this would be the President to do it.

Thank you, Mr. Plouffe

This is a good op-ed from David Plouffe, the architect of President Obama's 2008 campaign. It makes a lot of sense, and should be required reading for every Democratic campaign for office in November. It is good to hear that Mr. Plouffe is getting more actively involved in the 2010 campaign, as the Democrats need some common sense to stave off a reversal of fortunes.

An Open Letter to Glenn Beck and Jonah Goldberg

Dear Mr. Beck and Mr. Goldberg,

Please stop calling Adolf Hitler a liberal. Adolf Hitler rose to power on the back of rightwingers in Germany, people who felt they had been betrayed by effete liberals such as the Social Democratic Party, the Communists, and the Jews. The old aristocracy of the Kaiser led Germany backed him, including the power families that controlled Germany's largest companies. Just because he was a vegetarian, and hated smoking, doesn't make him a liberal. I know its hard for you to get your warped little minds around that, but I felt it necessary to try. If anything in the hapless Weimar republic resembles our Democratic party, its the ineffectual government coalition of moderates and leftists that couldn't stop the rise of the anti-intellectual, militaristic, xenophobic jackasses who supported Hitler and the National Socialist Party against their best interests.

Thanks,

Andrew C. Tate

p.s. You Lose

An Open Letter to Congressional Democrats

Dear Congressional Democrats (particularly those in the House),

SACK UP AND PASS THE DAMN HEALTH CARE BILL.

You've already paid the political price for the bill. Not getting it to Obama will neuter you for the rest of the year, and make a bad November even worse. Grow up, stop acting like chicken-shit stereotypical democrats, and actually do the damn job you were elected to do.

Sincerely,

Andrew C. Tate