The Tea Party and the Direct Election of US Senators

One of the key items on the Tea Party agenda is to repeal the direct election of United States Senators. Until about 1913 senators were selected not by voters of each state as they are today, but by the state legislatures.  Tea Party activists think that the election campaigns have become corrupt driven either by personal fortune or by senators peddling favors for campaign contributions.  While one might agree that the expensive election campaigns have gotten out of hand, but it’s hard to figure out why a supposed populist organization would go for such an old time elitist solution. Perhaps the Tea Partiers think it is easier for them to intimidate state legislators rather all American voters.

Political Comment on Facebook

Since it seems to be socially inappropriate to post political comments on Facebook, I will guess I will post them here where no one will be accidentally offended. Well, that could be because nobody reads this blog.

Is the Tea Party Really Just a Profit Center?

Next week in Nashville the Tea Party faithful are scheduled to attend their first national convention which will feature a big speech by Sarah Palin. The national news media pointedly not invited to attend except for a few favorites.
However the word out of Nashville is that the convention is being presented by a 'for profit' company which is charging attending $546 a head, nearly double the price of the other national conventions. The organizer of the event, a Nashville attorney, says he doesn't plan to make a lot of money on the tea partiers, but registering as a for-profit gives him more flexibility in monetizing the movement later on.

Look Who's An Activist Judge Now

One of the grander American political myths is that liberal and progressive federal judges are 'activist' judges while conservative jurists rule closely to precedent. Political myths are those clichés that bad political journalists and columnists recite without question off mental three by five cards when they are thrust into political situations they know nothing about.

The truth of the matter, as observed by legal scholars during Sonia Sotomayor's nomination hearings, is that much of the liberal or progressive agenda is now "settled law." In fact, if conservatives are to achieve their agenda they will have to rely on activist judges to overturn many precedents set by the U.S. Supreme Court over the last four decades.

Of course, this is in stark contrast to the plainsong chant we have heard from conservative appointees to the court Samuel Alito and John Roberts and their senatorial supporters. NBC news recalls the quote: "Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire... I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat."

Well, guess what sports fans. When the Roberts edition of the US Supreme Court overturned a list of federal laws some dating back to 1907 and striking previous court decisions as recent as four years ago, that's judicial activism. In fact now that the 5-4 split on the court has been fully cemented, many court observers expect the court to start rolling back other federal laws and court decisions that validate the power of the federal government. Heck, it is said that Justice Clarence Thomas advocates a return to days just after the passage of the Constitution in the late 1700's.

If you are a First Amendment absolutist – a place where many civil libertarians reside, you might somewhat agree with the decision that adds more voices to the 'marketplace of ideas' even if they are carrying a fire hose. But, please, don't shovel any of that poo that conservatives are not 'activist judges.'

Earthquake in the Bay State

The election in Massachusetts is scary on many different levels. It's very interesting politics, but after that the back that a Republican was won statewide in the Bay State is just plain weird. Obviously the biggest reason for the reversal of fortune is the Democrats are taking way too long to pass the health care bill. Most of the bill isn't very controversial, and almost all congressmen agree that many provisions deserve passage. However, a few folks have held up the bill by insisting on their own causes to the bitter end. Objectively speaking, most Americans aren't too crazy about a public option of any kind and trying to shove it down their throats just makes them crazy. They are less crazy about the idea of the government forcing them to purchase health insurance.

Most political observers calculated that the bill passed out of the Senate finance committee without a public option was the form of the bill that would be the most passable in the end. But Harry Reid, probably pressed by the Democratic constituency groups, caved and put the public option and the exchange back on the table wasting a month and giving liberal House members the illusion they had a chance. Many Washington DC types praised Reid for the way he hammered out the 60 vote majority to ultimately pass the bill. But viewed from out across the country, most folks thought many of the deals to reach 60 votes stunk. The new political lexicon now contains the phrase 'the Nebraska Purchase' courtesy of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb). Nelson stuck his head up at the last minute to assuage his mostly-Republican state, only to have it cut off by the folks back home. He then allowed himself to be portrayed as the Lincoln, Nebraska, village idiot.

Even now every day Congressional leaders are still trying to hammer the bill out, seemingly oblivious to the fact that the clock is ticking on their tenure. Oops, there goes another seat in a purple state.

You'd never know it by reading the papers or watching TV but it's a basic political science, as defined by the US Constitution, the Congress is in charge of the country. That is unless the country is being run by Republicans. Then the Congress caves and abrogates all of its authority to the President. Witness George Bush. Only in a Republican presidency could a GOP congress run up a federal debt to monstrous proportions and trash the federal budgeting process, then turn around and become the party of fiscal responsibility. Talk about your party discipline.

Another political science concept: because seniority is a major component in determining Congressional leadership and because the most liberal Democratic congressmen come from safe seats, most of the Democratic leadership is much more liberal than the rest of the country. The sad thing is that they never have figured it out. Rep. Jim McDermott thinks he represents America.

And Another Thing . . .

The Nobel Prize is a nod more to world sensibilities who are happy to see the United States again take leadership in the reduction of nuclear weapons, solving the troubles in the MidEast and reinforcing the power of diplomacy over naked force. The Nobel committee cares very little about domestic US politics or the troubles in the US media industry.
The rancid reaction here in America is more of a statement about the growth of the opinion media and the death of the news media.

Yes, it did come as a big surprise that President Barack Obama today was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Last I looked this award was still one of the highest awards a human can receive. While it is unique that a Nobel Prize is awarded to someone so young and so early in his career, Obama's message of international diplomacy must have struck a chord with the award jurists. The group must have been attracted to his message of international disarmament and negotiation across many fronts.
And, you would think that the award would be greeted with cheers among most of the citizens of his home country. Guess again.
Following the announcement of the award today, I made the mistake of reading stories posted by the mostly the mainstream media and actually spent a few minutes watching cable news. Actually I found most of the comments pretty harsh.
Most surprising, I found a hastily written article by the normally doughty Associated Press, mostly summarizing a list of anti-Obama comments they gathered. Frankly, because the piece echoed so many of the conservatives erroneous talking points, I thought the article was manufactured opinion rather than news.
Most of the cable news analysts, save about one, were happy to dump all over it. Fox News spent most of the morning covering a slow-speed car chase in Dallas. (Actually the phrase "cable news network" is a misnomer, they are all more like "cable opinion networks." Producing opinion is cheap, producing news takes time and money.)
News outlets went out of their way to drag down the usual conservative analysts who lambasted Obama for his actions in Iraq, his deliberations over Afghanistan and his negotiations with Iran. While they were trying to make the case he wasn't deserving the award, the right-wingers didn't sound very peace like. One prominent commentator said the Obama only won the prize because he was black.
One of my favorite commentators dismissed the Norwegian prize jury as a bunch of left-wing liberals. I guess that panel has to recruit more guys from Alabama or Texas named Bubba.
There is a chance that many Americans were a bit torqued because some analysts hinted that the award could be a world smack down of George Bush. But I am still betting that the Nobel Prize jurists work at a bit higher plain than cable news networks.

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee, with one exception, voted along party lines to recommend Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. It had been expected that one or two other Republican senators would have voted with the Democrats.
Combined with votes on the national health care proposal, that Republicans in Congress are voting in a block to please their party and fund-raising base -- cranky, old white men, red-necks from the South and talk radio hosts.
Word out of Washington is that Republican congressment and senators are working with the President and Democrats on drafting proposals, but just don't want to get caught out in the open voting for them. They are putting themselves into the weird position of working on legislation, then voting against it.

Before they were morphed and twisted out of shape by cable news networks, the words 'liberal' and 'progressive' were not overlapping concepts. Traditionally progressives were the reformers who wanted to improve conditions for working people through the established political process. These folks had there golden era during the first two decades of the Twentieth Century lead by a corps of social advocates and muckrakers who took on the horrible conditions of anyone who wasn't rich or a capitalist.
Progressive were at odds from the radicals, anarchists and syndicalists who just wanted to literally blow the whole thing up.
Traditional liberals are those who try to get government out of everyone's lives. They want to say and do what they want without governement interference. The folks would be the ones in opposition to the big state type of government.
John Podesta, who headed the transition for Barack Obama and is renovating the concept of progessivism, wrote a book last year call "The Power of Progress" which outlines the differences.
Using these definitions, Podesta describes the Obama Administration as progressive. So far he doesn't appear to be a Liberal.
Take that Rush Limbaugh!

The economy is still nuts, and here is another example. Late last week, much to everyone's, surprise, some of the nation's biggest banks reported profits of all things. And how was this surprise good news greeted on Wall Street today? Financial stocks are getting hammered. The Dow is down 253 points at this writing.
Apparently, either bank executives have the credility of Fox News anchors or the stock market behaves like a four-year-old after heading a handful of Easter candy. I vote for both.
The news of the uptick in bank earnings ran so counter to the conventional wisdom that all weekend journalists and analysts have been bad mouthing the banks' reports. And one thing you can't do in this crazed time is to run counter to conventional wisdom.
In truth, some financial analysts are reporting that bank profits are coming their securities trading desks, a small isolated sector of their banking business and that those numbers might be legit. That sector is show small signs of life. It also appears that many bankers are trying to run as quickly as they can from federal financial assistance, even if they may need it further down the road. They had their fill of populist outrage in Congress. Would they jigger their financial reports to avoid a government bailout? This could get interesting.

The Market Went Up Today! Why!

 

Today, for no obvious reason, the Dow Jones Industrial Average went up 216 points, or about 2.79%. For months now major financial journalists have been following the stock market as one of their leading indicators of the country's economic health. Yeah, right. Using the stock market as economic metric is  on par as using a 13-year-old girl at a Hannah Montana as the leading indicator of the nation's mental health. When you think about it, they act pretty much the same.

Dumb as I want to be, journalists edition: There is a big news flap today coming out of the G-20 meetings in London. Michelle Obama is being criticized for touching Queen Elizabeth when the two met. Apparently the team of journalists shadowing the Obamas don't know much about economics, the banking crisis or international relations, so the erstwhile political reporters are reverting to what they do best: gotcha journalism.
Remember when George W. Bush supposedly set back Ango-American affairs back 200 years by winking at the queen a couple of years ago.