Run for the hills! The crazies are coming!

Last night was midterm election night. I purposefully tried to avoid the returns because I knew what was coming and I just wanted to find out in the morning when the dust had settled. I say tried because I was unsuccessful in my attempts to do so until I got off work and drowned my sorrows with a beer for 5 at the bar. But that is neither here nor there.

My take on what happened?

1) 2012 elections will be easier for the Dems. Boehner says he wants to cooperate with the Senate and Obama, but will that actually happen? No. He wants to extend the Bush tax cuts, which WILL NOT happen because he'd need to get it through the Dem-controlled Senate and Obama, who I will hope stand their ground and let them expire. He'll also work his tail off to repeal healtch care reform, which ironically enough the American people don't want repealed - they want it expanded. And God forbid the people railing against the reform get sick and then either get dropped by their insurance provider or have them not cover their expenses. News alert - because of the reform, they can't do that anymore! But again, he'll have to work with the Senate and Obama to do so. But Boehner has said in the past that he will refuse to work with the Dems to get anything accomplished. They've been saying all campaign long that this election will be a referendum on Obama's presidency. If the American people were really as fed up with Obama's presidency and the actions of the 111th Congress, they would have won by a much larger margin and won both houses back. Their majority is 239 compared to the 262 that the Dems had and they only gained 6 seats in the Senate to break the filibuster-proof 60 the Dems had. So, why do I think 2012 will be easier for the Dems? Simple, really. The GOP will continue to undermine any progress by holding the House hostage unless the Dems compromise. Being the spineless oafs they are, they will of course bend to the GOP's will because they are a big bunch of bullies. Things will still not get any better and in 2 years time, the Dems can say that they worked with the GOP to get things accomplished, but still nothing changed and if we were to re-elect them to a majority, there will be progress. And either we will see the GOP win back both chambers and the White House or Dems win it all back. See what I mean about this being a cycle?

2) My faith in America has been restored, for now. There were limited winners from the Tea Party: Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, to name a couple. Christine "I'm not a witch" O'Donnell and Sharron "rape victims should make lemonade out of a lemon situation" Angle both were defeated. I don't think the Tea Party is going anywhere, unfortunately. With the Dems still in control of the Senate and in the White House, the GOP will operate in one of two ways. They will either continue to be a bunch of obstructionist bullies or they will mellow out and disengage with the extremists in the Tea Party in an effort to appear more moderate and to actually govern. I still favor the idea that they will continue to be obstructionists. And if they do continue to do so, the Tea Party is the new face of the GOP. That may be good news for the Dems, since more moderate Republicans will jump ship and become Dems or independents who caucus with the Dems. Like I said, my faith was restored for the time being. I can only hope that the Tea Party will become a faint memory. I really don't see them trying to reach across the aisle and win support amongst moderates and the left.

And with that being said, I have a few questions for the GOP/Tea Party/Libertarians: if you're against the government in your private life, why are you pro-life/anti-choice and anti-gay rights? Those are both very private issues. To me, it's simple. If you don't believe in abortion, don't get one. Don't force your religious views on the rest of the country. The same goes for gay marriage - if you don't want gays to "devalue" marriage, maybe you shouldn't get married either since half of straight marriages end in divorce these days. I know they all say they are Constitutionalists, but I'm sorry to burst their bubble. First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If you're going to try and make abortions and gay marriage illegal based solely on what your holy book tells you, it won't pass. It's against the Constitution. Thanks for playing, though.

Also, why do you want lower taxes? Will it create jobs? NO! Will it cut the deficit? NO! Are you, the people in the middle class getting the lower taxes? NO! All it will do is de-fund important programs. Your tax dollars funded my grade school education. Your tax dollars pay for fire and police departments. Your tax dollars pay to repave roads that you drive on every day to work. Your tax dollars will also pay for your Social Security and Medicare when you retire. You were expecting those benefits, right? Kiss them goodbye if you want to lower your taxes. If the GOP really had it their way, we wouldn't have Social Security or Medicare anymore. And as a side note, you do realize those programs are socialism, right? What programs do you want to cut in order to make a dent in the deficit? GOP leadership has yet to offer any solutions. What programs do you want to cut to pay for the Bush tax cuts? They don't have answers for that either. You benefit the most from the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision since you are the party of Big Business, but would you really do the will of the American people who overwhelmingly want that decision overturned? And since the American people want health care reform expanded, why are you trying to repeal it?

And since you are the party of Big Business and Wall Street, are you really going to repeal financial reform as well? You do realize that those companies on Wall Street are the ones who got us into this mess to begin with, right? Repealing that reform just opens the doors for this to happen all over again. If they couldn't regulate themselves the first time around, what makes you think that will change?

My final thought is this: I think we are entering a new era of politics. Increasingly, older people and young people who are still attached to their parent's apron-strings will vote GOP. Why? They're afraid of change. They like the status quo and don't want us to make any progress into the 21st century and beyond. Younger people, who are more willing to adapt to what the world throws at them will vote Dem. There's a reason I prefer the term "progressive" when referring to how I view myself politically. The reason the GOP is putting up such a fight is because they don't want things to change for their children and their grandchildren. Well, you know what? I like change. Quit telling me what I want and what I don't want and let me think for myself. It's my government, too, you know. Quit holding it hostage because you're scared.

Huh?

Can someone please explain to me how the healthcare bill equals any of these?

(Definitions taken from dictionary.com)

Communism:
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.

Socialism:
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Fascism:
–noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3. (initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

The GOP is just throwing around these scary-sounding words and not paying any attention to the meaning of these words they nonchalantly throw out at the masses. And since the average American is an idiot (sorry, but we collectively have the IQ of a rock. Either get over that fact or get an education), they hear them and think "I think I remember learning about that in grade school. Isn't that bad? Does this mean I should be against this bill?" without figuring out what the words themselves actually mean. Sorry, but semantics matter. It's not that surprising to me that people don't care about it anymore since we live in an era where we have shortened our speech patterns to outside the arena of texting. To me, saying healthcare reform is any of these words is the semantic version of "Let's eat Grandma" vs. "Let's eat, Grandma." There's a big difference there. And it's only by the placement of a comma do we go from cannibilism to stating that it's time to have a meal with your grandmother.

A little side note: If you're really against this so-called socialism, I will gladly take your Social Security checks and Medicare benefits off your hands when you retire. We've had "socialized" retirement and healthcare for decades now. Didn't think about that one, did you? If you're already retired, I'll take your Social Security checks any day to supplement my income. I need to pay off student loans. :)

Here's a blog post that I felt sums up my feelings towards the GOP at the moment, as well:

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/round-up-or-down-house-members-react-to-dems-knew-plan-to-pass-health-care-reform.php?ref=fpa

The Democrats really aren't any better as far as party politics is concerned. They are pretty much taking the stance that since they are in a majority, they are just going to simply do what they want since they have Obama to rubberstamp what they pass and not consult with the GOP. This is not the way to govern our country, people! There needs to be public discourse between parties so that the bill really is for the people since the vast majority of people in this country identify with either party. To me, if it's truly a bipartisan bill, both parties are OK with it as a whole and still have problems with the details. That's OK. That's what legislation is for. You can fix parts of it if it becomes apparent it's not working. And that's what I find so funny about the healthcare bill. There are amendments and provisions in there that the GOP put in, and yet they unanimously voted against it just because they feel it will better them politically to stand against it. It remains to be seen if this will bite them in the ass when it comes to elections, and that depends on whether the bill is seen as a success or failure in the months leading up to the mid-term elections.

And as for Congress itself, they need a major overhaul. They haven't been able to do their job in over a decade because of this aura of hyper-partisanship surrounding Capitol Hill. When the GOP had power in the 90's, they killed healthcare the first time around under Clinton. The Dems killed Social Security privatization in return a few years ago under Bush. It seems like neither party wants to be an adult about all this and work across the aisle because they are still licking their wounds. This is why I think a 3rd political party is needed. They can come in and actually legislate while they spend all their time fighting. I'd imagine the Democrats and Republicans would eventually go the way of the Federalists, Whigs and all the other political parties and just evolve into another party.

I can see why George Washington didn't have a political party. I think his fears have become a reality. He feared they would lead to nothing but conflict and stagnation. And what do we have today? Fighting between the parties and threats of filibuster. The founding fathers as a whole I think would be rolling in their graves if they saw the way our government runs now. Hell, they are probably yelling at the top of their lungs up in heaven, hoping Congress will get with the picture.

Here's another good article I've found over the course of the week: http://www.newsweek.com/id/235560/page/1

Ugh. That's just little old me and my opinion.