Democratic Voters League

Conservatives tend to be the lions on the attack and are not accustomed to being on the defensive.  They are experienced at attacking the evils of the left and the abuses of activist judges. They love to attack “tax-and-spend liberals” without ever discussing who should be taxed or what government money is actually spent on.  They expect their progressive rivals to be wimpy and apologetic.  And in many cases over the last few decades, that is the case.  The left looks for compromise so they can get some of what they want while the right attacks and holds out. 

So imagine the shock to conservatives when President Obama decided last week to speak plainly about the Supreme Court and what a decision to throw out the health care law would mean.  President Obama then threw punches at the Mitt Romney-supported Paul Ryan budget, calling it a Trojan Horse, radical, and social Darwinism.  Obama even listed specific programs the Ryan budget would cut  - including student loans, medical and scientific research grants, Head Start, and so on. 

So, what has been the Republican response to the President’s plain speak?  Romney was appalled.  Yet Romney could neither defend the cuts nor deny the president’s list of particulars.  And his press conference response to the Supreme Court was labeled as President Obama inciting the Court and berating their role.  Yet, Obama’s statements are moderate compared with those of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who unsuccessfully sought to add members to the court after it had voided one New Deal law after another.  And Republicans have criticized the activist nature of the court for years, but now that the President is expressing his concern, they are turning about face. 

The Left would be irresponsible to just sit by quietly while a conservative Supreme Court majority undid 80 years of jurisprudence. Now that Obama has decided that he won’t be a wimp, the Conservatives are unhappy because they prefer passive, intimidated liberals to the fighting kind.

As Gas prices continue to rise, Republicans take issue with the White House.  Mitt Romney is demanding the President open up more domestic drilling and the super PAC behind Rick Santorum just released a new ad in Louisiana blasting the President on gas prices.  The GOP continues their attack on the White House regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline.   But the rise in gas prices has little to do with energy policy. It has everything to do inadequate Wall Street regulation.

Oil supplies aren’t being squeezed and over 80 percent of America’s energy needs are now being satisfied by domestic supplies.  And now we are starting to become an energy exporter. Demand for oil hasn’t really changed.  In fact, demand is down in the U.S. compared to last year at this time, and global demand is still moderate given the economic slowdowns in Europe and China.

But Wall Street is betting on higher oil prices in the future — and that betting is causing prices to rise. Investors are laying odds that unrest in Syria will spill over into other countries or that tensions with Iran will affect the Persian Gulf, and that global demand will pick up as American consumers bounce back to life.  These bets are pushing up oil prices because Wall Street firms and other big financial players now dominate oil trading.

Relatively few players with very deep pockets are placing huge bets on oil With too few financial players controlling too much of the oil market, prices rise higher and higher — not only on the basis of their expectations about the future but also expectations about how high other speculators will drive the price.  And we are the ones paying that price.

Isn’t it ironic that we don’t hear Republicans railing against Wall Street speculators? Could this have anything to do with the fact that Wall Street is bankrolling the GOP as never before?  Shouldn’t President Obama let America know what is really causing gas prices to rise? 

Who really won the Arizona and Michigan primaries?  Mitt Romney, of course.  Despite his recent surge, Rick Santorum wasn’t able to pull off another upset in either state.  Santorum will, most likely, walk away with a number of delegates from his close second Michigan, however.  Yet, even with this round of wins and Super Tuesday looming, if Mitt Romney becomes the GOP candidate, who wins? 

Okay, I know that there are still four individuals in the race for the Republican candidacy for President.  So, getting anything more than 25% of the vote in any primary or caucus is good, right?  And Mitt Romney capturing 41% of the vote in Michigan is a decisive win, correct?  Not so.  In fact, Romney just barely squeaked by Santorum who garnered 38% of the vote.  Michigan’s 30 delegates will be allocated on a proportional basis.  However, it is still unclear who would win the most Michigan delegates, which are based on congressional districts.  So, Santorum could still prove to upset Romney.  Furthermore, Michigan is Romney’s “home state”.  This is the state where Romney’s father was governor – and a popular one at that.  So, 41% from his home state seems more like another statement against Romney than for him. 

Why did Romney win – even if it was close? Here are a few thoughts:

• Romney is a terribly flawed candidate but he is well funded and has a top rate organization.
• Santorum may have overreached. Like Gingrich, Santorum may have become overconfident.  His controversial comments make him seem fringe to many.
• The Santorum robocall to Democrats, calling on them to vote against Romney since Romney had been against the bailout (so was Santorum) was played over and over on cable shows and reported widely in the press. That may have turned some voters off.
• Santorum is unpopular with women voters.

But, in the end, it turned out to be a double-header for Romney, who also won in Arizona — thus making his path to the Republican nomination much easier since many Republicans now conclude that he is the “inevitable” choice with his resources.  Who really is the winner here? Romney – maybe.  America – maybe not.

There are many who are baffled by the US Government system.  Every two years members of the House of Representatives must run for office.  So, incumbents spend ½ their time stumping for reelection and ½ their time finding ways to thank their supporters who got them elected.  If that’s the case, when do they have time to legislate? At least our President and the Senate have four or six years, respectively, in their jobs.  Not only is there the issue of time in office, but who gets elected.  Who has the time and the wealth to take two to six years off from work to have every detail of their life scrutinized?  Of course, our politicians get paid, but it is paltry.  No wonder so many bow to the wishes of lobbyists who really pay our politicians.

Politics may have once been a game for the ethical, now it seems to be just a game.  Unfortunately we are often the pawns in this game of power.  But it seems the inmates are ruling the asylum.  I often sit in amazement as I ponder what it is our leaders are doing.  Are they really clueless or are they manipulating? Stupid or smart? Like the image above, I sometimes think our Congress has no brain.  But these people take our money, give it to the rich, and then they get people to blame progressives. Who's the one without a brain?

If we want our politicians to be more responsive to our needs, we must first strive to find people who truly represent us.  I wish it were as easy as clicking our shoes together and making a wish.  But, even Dorothy in Oz had a lot to go through until she could get home.  With Congressional approval at 10%, maybe now is the time for us to find that yellow-brick road and wade through affliction in order to have our democracy immerge as it should be once again.