“The United States of America is not a democracy.  It is a Constitutional Republic!”  That’s the new cry from the right in response to calls from many who want to preserve the integrity of our democratic processess.  What’s this all about?

I see it simply as an attempt to delegitimize our current elected leaders.  Tea Partiers who still can’t accept that Barack Obama was elected to the presidency claim they are governed not by the government but rather by the Constitution, and any initiative made by the government with which they disagree is patently unconstitutional. 

That’s ridiculous.  The Constitution is a wonderful document that indeed does spell out the powers held and not held by the government.  And it does so in language that is not always precise just so successive generations and the nation as a whole can continue to develop and grow and still live under its tenets. 

But it is a document, not a government; just as the Major League Baseball rulebook is a document, not a team.  The rules are written down, then the teams play under those rules.  It would be pretty boring to go to Safeco Field and watch the rule book sit on the field for three hours. 

Like it or not, our current elected leaders are the “team” of the moment playing under the rules of the Constitution.  They can certainly be called on it if they break a rule.  But they can’t be dismissed as something irrelevant because we live in a Constitutional Republic.  Plus, doing so also deligitimizes the democratic process we use to elect those leaders (as spelled out by the Constitution). 

It’s dangerous to dis the voice We the People have in our political system.

With the election of Scott Brown, Republicans can now “filibuster” Democratic initiatives  in the Senate.  But the fact is the term has become completely separated from the act:

2 [²filibuster] a : the use of extreme dilatory tactics in an attempt to delay or prevent action especially in a legislative assembly b : an instance of this practice

That definition of the verb form of the word comes from Merriam-Webster online.  But that never happens anymore.  The minority party simply threatens a filibuster and the majority cowers.  Back in the day, senators would actually speak for hours at a time, taking turns until they couldn’t talk any longer or the opposition just couldn’t take it for another moment and withdrew the legislation.  Strom Thurmond famously reading the phone book to stall civil rights legislation comes to mind.  His policies were racist and wrong, but at least he lived up to the letter of the Senate’s rule. 

Make ’em actually stand up and orate, Harry Reid.

If the Superbowl and Olympics can use Roman numerals, why can’t I?

Anyway, I appreciate all the comments on my last posting and want to respond.  Maverick and others say that the health bills hammered out by Democrats are opposed in their entirety by congressional Republicans and the majority of Americans.  But the fact is that, when polled, a majority of Americans support the bills’ major tenets:  closing the prescription drug donut hole; ending lifetime maximums and denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions; expanding coverage for most Americans who don’t have it.  Insurance exchanges included in the legislation is very similar to Republican demands for the ability to buy insurance across state lines.  And, rather than a government take-over of health care, both bills are based on the market place and private insurers.  Most of the opposition comes from loud and repeated mischaraterizations of the bills.

Republicans are simply doing everything they possibly can to deny Obama any victory what so ever.  And don’t tell me Democrats want Obama to fail.  They’ve never marched in lock-step like the GOP, but they did get two similar health care bills passed and the only thing standing in the way of their reconciliation and eventual passage is a (threatened) Republican filibuster.

It is so very obvious that, inspite of their rhetoric to the contrary, Republicans in congress simply want to block any initiative by President Obama.  The president invited them into the debate over health care reform last year but they decided to simply oppose it and mischaracterize the legislation that Democrats fashioned.  Now, with their 41 seats in the senate, they say they want to be part of the process again.  So Obama has invited them to a televised debate on the subject (isn’t that another thing they’ve been clamoring for?) and they refuse because Obama won’t throw out the legislation that’s been passed by the two houses.  I say they should show some spine.  Stand before the president, Democrats and the nation and debate the legislation and bring your own bright ideas forward.  They were sent to Washington to serve the people and get things done.  Not sit on their hands and continue to hope the nation fails just long enough for them to grasp power once again.

I’m often accused of ignoring the “facts” and sticking to my opinion on strictly ideological ground.  Well, back at ‘cha rightees!

As the article states, a review of scientific papers on climate change published from 1965 to 1979 found that only 7 warned of an extended cooling period while 44 predicted continued warming.  20 were neutral or made no prediction.  And the scientist who is often credited with drawing attention to global “cooling” later said the data didn’t support that contention.

Denial on ideological grounds.  Who’d a thunk it?

When Ronald Reagan spoke his infamous words “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem” I couldn’t help but wonder why anyone would vote for the guy.  Why put a man in charge of something he obviously hates?  If I despise and mistrust all motor vehicles am I the right man to put in charge of General Motors?

Reagan ushered in a distinct era of hatred for government which continues to undermine any progress we could be making today.  I counter his contention with this:  Government, if run correctly, can certainly be the solution.  We didn’t see the magical “market forces” reforming the health insurance industry, so government must.  The market itself was imploding before government stepped in to prop it up.

That said, I admit that nothing is perfect.  I direct you to this piece by conservative NY Times columnist David Brooks.

I applaud President Obama and the many world leaders who’ve gathered in Copenhagen to hammer out an agreement on dealing with greenhouse gas emissions.  And I offer this article for supporters and skeptics alike.  Some good answers there.

I’m always in favor of people learning about how things work in America, but I have to admit that I didn’t realize conservatives were so out of touch.

Here are a few things they’ve apparently just recently caught on to:

The president has advisors.  From all the rhetoric about “csars” I can only conclude that conservatives thought that everyone who works in the White House was confirmed by a vote of the senate.  Never has been the case.

Congressmen and women represent their constituents and try to bring federal dollars to their states.  The cry lately is that Sen. Landreau of Louisiana “sold out” (that’s actually a much more G-rated term than is being bandied about) for voting in favor of debate over the senate health care legislation after millions were added to help her state pay for care for the poor.  First of all, that’s not such a bad thing.  Secondly, this happens all the time.  Bills that particular senators or representatives don’t favor or have no direct interest in are “sweetened” with perks for their constituents aimed at getting them on board.  A master at taking advantage of this was former Republican Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska.  He brought more federal money per capita to his state than any other legislator.  I guess conservatives have never heard the old adage that “watching legislation being made is much like watching sausage being made - you don’t want to watch.”

Some people will sometimes try to quiet people with whom they disagree.  All the hubub over the hacked (which is a crime, not whistleblowing) e-mails from the climate research center in England is just that - hubub.  What about all the federal scientists who were muzzled during the Bush years because their conclusions didn’t match the administration’s ideology?  Happens all the time.

It’s fine to criticize policies or issues, but don’t act like this is the dawn of a terrifying new era in America.  That’s real “politics of fear.”

Read this article for good perspective on Holder’s decision to try the 9/11 suspects in federal court in New York, especially if you don’t agree with it.

The right constantly bashes Barack Obama for being a narcissist.  It’s all about him and monuments to his greatness, they charge.

And yet they fawn over Sarah Palin - the very definition of a narcissist.  She was elected governor of Alaska, but Juneau couldn’t quite cut it after she got a taste of the national stage.  So, to heck with her first term.  She had to quit to make a pile of money hawking a lame book full of whining about how mistreated she was by the very people who made her a celebrity.

Every politician has an ego.  Her’s is just bigger than most, including Obama’s.