Lots of Political Wrangling

Many people are tiring of these Christmas tree bills passed by Congress with everything in them. They say in the nineteenth century this was never the case. Each bill passed by Congress performed a specific purpose. Thom Hartman says that this is the way it should be now, and I am inclined to disagree with him. Tied in with this sort of complaint is the absence of a line item Veto power for the Chief Executive of the United States to exercise, because the Constitution does not make any provision for it and any logical reading of the Constitution would say that it de facto prohobits it. The President is restricted to a thumbs up or thumbs down, and there is no third option. President Clinton strongly advocated for a line item veto just as virtually every governor in the United States has. This is the ability to blue pencil any passage of the bill that the President finds displeasing, and to sign the rest of it into law. George Bush tried to accomplish this with these "signing statements", which seemed to me of dubious legality. Were the line item veto allowed it would definitely cut expenditures of government. In terms of the other thing about these "Omnibus" or Christmas tree bills, Hartman argues that both Republican and Democrat should be in favor of limiting bills to one thing. Because there are provisions inserted by Democrats that Republicans don't like and insertions made by Republicans that Democrats don't like. Now we come to the bill which hopefully will extend unemployment coverage and also extend the payroll tax cuts of regular workers. John Boehner says he will go for this bill provided that drug testing is required for the unemployed. It would seem that the governor of Florida is pushing for drug testing, because he is involved with a drug testing company. I remember when I first heard about the guy and what a crook he was and thinking "that is one guy that will never be elected". The idea that unemployed people sit around using drugs must be an appealing one to right wingers who vilify the lower classes on the slightest pretext. Of course even if a corporation should drug test people, they would at least wait till they got hired because it would vastly reduce the number. The other provision is that the whole Canadian oil pipe line to Texas get built. There are numerous safety concerns. It bothers me that the ravages of strip mining in Alberta should gain followers and supporters here and that we should profit from their tainted energy. The President has indicated his favorible disposition to this pipeline. Then we have the Mc Cain - Levin amendment to the defense appropiations bill. Believe it or not this amendment with its provision for assasenating Americans is still a part of the bill, which is on its road to final passage, and the President has already indicated he will sign it. This is because the President has already evidenced an inflination to target American citizens for assasenation and complete denial of their legal rights. Of course the "clean little secret" is that Texas now has more wind power generation than a nuclear reactor would provide. Alternative energy is becoming a commercial reality whether people like Dr. Levy like it or not. "Drill baby drill" will become an anachronism subject to mockery and ridicule in the coming years, if it isn't already, since the US only had 4% of the world's oil reserves. You know were I to say "Let's see whether my positions or years look better in a couple of years or so" Dr. Levy may express offence that "I'm saying I'm smarter than he is". But in reality people who pull this kind of "stuff" are weak people who have no grounds for their position. He can read all my writings on the election and I can read all the written stuff he has done - - which would probably fit on a match book cover. And we'll let economic experts decide who has the better plan.

They say that Donald Trump is throwing a party and Newt Gingrich is the only one who's coming. Just like Gloria Swanson throws a Newyears Eve Party and William Holden is the only one who shows up. Of course it's going to be some kind of a Donald and Newt love fest. It will be the first Gingrich info-mertial of the campaign. As to the debate this Saturday on ABC, it will be the first one my mother says she will have seen. So it's all the more unfortunate that John Huntsman, the one candidate she might perceive as Sane, will not be there. Of course the air will be decidedly less fowl without Herman Cain in the room. So they will be down to six. But I was thinking that if you want to get me to consider voting Republican than put up a sane candidate. It seems that Obama's Health Care bill will require a three percent tax for millionaires staring in 2013. So I would see this is a trading chip. I'd say to John Boehner, "What are you willing to give me for this concession? If you aren't ready to horse trade then I'll just hold on to it and wait for someone who will". Of course not only is the provision to allow dependent children up to age 26 - - already a reality, but also the provision about pre existing conditions is already the law. My guess is the more people find out about this - - the more mind changing about Obama for the better will be going on. But overall this should be one of the most important debates the republicans hold. Not only because it's one of the few that is broadcast over free television, but also because it is the closest to the Iowa primary, and interest is now spiked.

Many would say about my last posting that some clarification is in order. "OK let me get this straight. You said those in the realm of Infinity were dead and since God perceives mankind this way (that's what all the fundamentalist preachers say) then in essence "God is Dead". Is that what you are saying?" And I would respond "Pretty much". And they would go on, "But then I have another problem because months earlier you said that Time and Infinity themselves were artifacts or creations of God. Is that right?" And I would say "That's right". They add, "Then what you are saying is that this state of being Dead in the afterlife is an artificially created situation by God Himself, and would not otherwise exist. Is that right?" That's right. And I could coment on the lyric "When we've been there ten thousand years, bright shining as the sun, we've no less days to sing his praise then when we first begun". Well there is a problem with this song. Because "time may be a little short". You see in the state of Infinity, it will take forever to accomplish nothing. And in the time it takes to hickup, you will already have exceeded your alotment of life, which is the length of Infinity". Well this is just another thing to chew on when you are trying to decide which religion you really want to join.

Newt Gingrich is a walking political train wreck. First of all the problem with Newt Gingrich is that he's everything the Tea Party founders claim that they are against, like being a Washington insider to the n'th degree. Newt has nearly as many flip flops on issues as has Romney. He did an ad with Nancy Palosi saying he supported taking action on Global Warming. He has endorsed mandentory health care for all Americans, something I personally am against and always have been. He lied about this then had to admit it in a debate. There is that whole Tiffany charge account scandal for the jewelry last spring, which he also wouldn't give a direct answer to. But we mustn't forget that Newt Gingrich was fired by his own party as speaker of the House in 1998 for "being brought up on dozens of ethics charges". There was this criticism on Meet the Press about being against "Right wing political engineering" on the medicare issue, then said 'Anybody who uses that tape is a liar". He outright lied about his involvement with Freddy Mac and the nature of it. There are the questionable circumstances surrounding the divorce of both of his wives. He met his first wife as a sixteen year old math student and she was eight years older than him. Of course he wants to make English the official language, which will cost him all of the Latino vote right off. He lied when he said unemployment was cut under Clinton because "Clinton implemented my tax policies". No he sure didn't. He is a member of countless lobby group and earning God knows how many millions. He's involved with both the health insurance and the drug industries. And of course above all this he says he wants to take America back to its "Traditional spiritual values" because we are a "Christian nation". He said in a speech Judy sent me that "Education is a dangerous thing if we don't teach religious values along with it". And now he's in trouble because of his advocacy of repealing century old child labor laws - - and is generally hostile to labor unions. Also a dozen years ago he advocated that children be taken from single mothers and placed in orphanages because he was inspired by the movie "Boy's Town". But I will say this. His debating style is like mine would perhaps be. I guess you could say that he's an arrogant some of a bitch and what he needs is another arrogant some of a bitch to stand up to him. He comes out swinging proactively and does not flinch at the hard questions. He has a rich vocabulary and a wealth of historical examples to back up his positions. He is often often able to rightly correct certain details that other candidates get wrong. I think Obama will have his hands full in debating him. People may perceive the President as weak and tentative and helpless without a teleprompter, and unable to think quickly on his feet. Nobody would accuse Newt Gingrich of that. So he'll get through the primaries OK. But I'm convinced that at some point reality will sink in as to what sort of an ethically shallow man he is - - and would if elected be a discredit to his Country.