George Washington on Government

A people who ignore their history are doomed to repeat it; we're already repeating parts of it, and not for the first time.  But all that means is that the words of our founding fathers are still relevant, if not merely "relevant again."

George Washington boast of our nation's liberalism in his letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, 1790:

If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good government, to become a great and happy people.

The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy — a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.

He also spoke of the importance of working together in his Farewell Address, 1796:

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth...

We haven't had any unity of government in the last two congresses; when the GOP got control of the House, the Republican leadership announced to its constituents that the party would no longer be working towards unity of purpose, but focusing solely on preventing the incumbent president from being re-elected.

To that end, the Republican Party has been flat-out demonizing the Democratic Party, and any who support it.  And Washington warned us of this, too:

...you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union... you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it... discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country... The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

In Washington's times, factionalism was divided along regional origin; citizens tended to identify themselves by their state affiliation rather than Americans.  But the basic problem is still with us, even if we call ourselves "Democrats" and "Republicans" or "Liberals" or "Conservatives."  Washington was very clear that true patriots are Americans first, above and beyond any other affiliation.

He was also insistent that we must work together, and that facts must be considered over insinuations:

These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

And in particular, we can't emphasize enough how dangerous he considered political parties:

One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other(s). You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community...

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Doesn't this ring familiar in the light of Citizens' United and the Koch Brothers? A small and well-financed group manages to subvert existing laws to flood the airwaves with patently false information, drowning out the truth in the cacophony of blaring commercials.

This election is a damning testament to the accuracy of George Washington's warning.

George Washingon on Political Parties

From George Washington's Farewell Address, 1796

On political parties:

"Let me... warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party...

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But... in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."

While it is true that both of the major parties are playing fast and loos with the truth, the fact is that the Republican Party isn't merely exaggerating, or mis-stating, facts.  It's making stuff up out of whole cloth.  And lying isn't something any of us should support.

But whatever your opinions on the matter, they do not matter if you do not vote.  Be sure to cast your vote this election day.

Lyin' Ryan Protests Himself

Paul Ryan just can't seem to avoid lying to the American people.  This time, he's chastising President Obama for the budget cuts that automatically kick in if Congress doesn't stop its inane bickering in order to pass a proper budget.

The Romney campaign is up at arms, and posted a press release detailing the dire consequences of the plan.

President Obama Signed Legislation That Could Lead To More Than $500 Billion In Defense Cuts In 2013.
-- mittromney.com, August 23. 2012

While the memo mentions that President Obama signed a bill that had passed both houses of Congress, the real cheek is Rep. Ryan blaming the President for doing so.

“President Obama’s reckless defense cuts that are hanging over our cloud, hanging over the horizon..."
-- CNN. 8/22/2012

President Obama's "reckless defense cuts" that were voted on and approved in both houses of Congress.  Since there's only one President, and there are a total of 547 members of Congress, doesn't that really make it Congress' reckless defense cuts?

But Mr. Ryan doesn't stop there. ThinkProgress has posted a video of Mr. Ryan speaking before a crowd.

"We opposed it then; we oppose it now."
-- ThinkProgress.org, 8/23/2012

Except that he didn't oppose it.  He voted for it. 

Paul Ryan is blaming Barack Obama for signing a bill that Ryan voted for.  Mr. Ryan is lying his ass off when he says he opposed it. You don't oppose things by voting for them, you oppose them by voting against them.  That's the entire point of being able to vote against things.

And he wasn't alone; 174 of his fellow Republicans also voted IN FAVOR OF the same bill that RYAN ALSO VOTED FOR.

Surely, one way to keep Mr. Obama from signing a bill into law would be to vote against it so that it never made it to his desk.  But Mr. Ryan did not vote against it, he voted for it, which means that he approved of the bill, because when you approve of something you vote for it, which is what Ryan did.

Do Republicans Revere Rapists?

A little while back, we listed out some of the problematic things that the Republican Party has actively promoted; things like increasing the national debt, limiting our civil rights, violating the Constitutional prohibition against establishing religion in our government, de-emphasizing the sciences in education, and obstructing effective governance.

Sure, the GOP claims to be against all those things, but in fact they've been actively working to make all these things happen.

But we only touched upon the contempt that the Republican Party expresses towards women.  But it's out in the lime light, now that Tod Akin has blurted out a shockingly ignorant opinion - and elicited support from the more extreme fringes of the GOP - there is little room for doubt that today's Grand Old Party is setting out to deny women any rights over their own reproductive system.

BTW, the "ignorant opinion" is not the belief that a woman should be forced to carry a baby that is the result of rape to term - although I do find that a loathsome opinion.

No, it's the defense of that loathsome opinion with an argument knitted out of whole cloth and bolstered by bald-faced deception. 

“It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare,” Mr. Akin said of pregnancies from rape. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”
-- Fox2Now.com 08/19/012

Of course, there isn't a medical doctor worth his salt that would make such a ridiculous statement.  Millions of women wind up pregnant as the result of their rape.  There isn't a magic gate on her cervix; her body doesn't erect a barrier to sperm.

But please, don't take MY word for it:

Each year in the US, 10,000–15,000 abortions occur among women whose pregnancies are a result of reported rape or incest. An unknown number of pregnancies resulting from rape are carried to term. There is absolutely no veracity to the claim that “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to shut that whole thing down.” A woman who is raped has no control over ovulation, fertilization, or implantation of a fertilized egg (ie, pregnancy). To suggest otherwise contradicts basic biological truths.  
-- American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Akins then tried to clean it up.  He didn't mean to use the word "legitimate."

 "[I was] making the point that there were people who use false claims, like those that basically created Roe v. Wade."
-- ThinkProgress.org 8/21/12

So, he didn't mean that there's legitimate rape or to imply that sometimes rape is OK, he just meant that women usually lie about getting raped so they can get an abortion. 

And the sad part about it is that he really believes that that is not an offensive position; and worse, neither does a large number of Republicans in his home state.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Sharon Barnes, a woman AND a Republican AND a Missourian, came to Akin's defense, referring to the results of rape as "God's Blessing" of the violent act against one of his children.

“The congressman is totally, firmly, solidly pro-life,” Sharon Barnes, a member of the state Republican central committee, said, adding that Mr. Akin believed “that abortion is never an option.” ...she added that “at that point, if God has chosen to bless this person with a life, you don’t kill it.”

“That’s more what I believe he was trying to state,” she insisted. “He just phrased it badly.”
-- NY Times, 8/21/2012

No, Ms. Barnes, he didn't phrase it badly.  It's the belief that if you're the victim of a violent rape you should be forced to bear the rapist's child that's the issue.  Many of us believe that a woman should be able to choose what goes in and what comes out.  I understand that your religious views don't permit you to grasp this.  And really, that's fine.  As long as you don't try to force me to live according to your religious beliefs.

But the thing is, making the rest of us live by your religious beliefs is exactly what you're doing.

Huckabee's Right Hook

Conservative pundit and former Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee also defends Mr. Akin and his view that women should be forced to carry the child of the man who brutally attacked them.

“Ethel Waters, for example, was the result of a forcible rape,” Huckabee said of the late American gospel singer. One-time presidential candidate Huckabee added: “I used to work for James Robison back in the 1970s, he leads a large Christian organization. He, himself, was the result of a forcible rape. And so I know it happens, and yet even from those horrible, horrible tragedies of rape, which are inexcusable and indefensible, life has come and sometimes, you know, those people are able to do extraordinary things.”
-- latimes.com 8/20/2012

So, that makes rape just fine with Mr. Huckabee.  It's not a gross violation of a woman's body, it's a channel to bring really neat people into the world.

This isn't an issue that just popped up; the entire Republican Party is rotten with people who simply assume that women's views simply don't enter into the equation, and has been for quite some time

Any resemblance to Hannibal Lector is coincidental, probably

Back in March, Chuck Winder of Idaho, the sponsor of that state's "double ultra-sound bill" (raped women must undergo an invasive ultrasound procedure in which their vagina is penetrated and they are forced to look at the image of the result of the violence perpetrated against them before they can have an abortion), simply assumes that women lie about it.

"I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape issue, that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage, was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it truly caused by a rape. I assume that's part of the counseling that goes on.”
-- The Spokesman-Review, 03/09/12

Let's tally what these Republicans have said about rape so far:

• Women can't ever get pregnant from rape, because we don't understand the human reproductive system.
• And they are probably lying about getting raped to justify their abortion.
  
• When your rapist impregnates you against your will, it's a blessing.
• Even though you were raped, the child of the vicious thug who violated you might be a nice person.
• You weren't raped, you lying slut.
  

Something to consider about every statement made so far; not one of them address the actual victim: the woman who was raped.  Not one of these Republican pols seems to care about the woman who was brutalized; they only care about the child of a violent criminal.  Even though Mr. Akin did call for us to "punish the rapist," he concluded with "...and not the baby."  But what about the mother, Mr. Akin?  Why must she suffer?

And they haven't dealt with the reality of the results of being raped.  "Save the baby" is all they've considered.

Chicago lawyer Shauna Prewitt bravely steps into the fray, and recounts her own experience of being raped in college:

"You see, nine months after my rape, I gave birth to a beautiful little girl. You could say she was conceived in rape; she was. But she is also so much more than her beginnings. I blissfully believed that after I finally had decided to give birth to and to raise my daughter, life would be all roses and endless days at the playground."
-- CNN 8/22/12

Perhaps you think that she is justifying everything the Radical Right has been saying;  she accepted the life as a blessing, and moved beyond the origin of the seed.

But Ms. Prewitt learned what these politicians haven't been addressing; that even if you accept that life begins at conception, the story of a pregnancy does not end with a birth; especially not for victims of rape.

"It would not be long before I would learn firsthand that in the vast majority of states -- 31 -- men who father through rape are able to assert the same custody and visitation rights to their children that other fathers enjoy."
-- CNN 8/22/12

So even if a woman decides to accept "the blessing" and carry the child to term, to try to convert a sadistic act of humiliation and degradation into something postive, these same thoughtless legislators have done absolutely nothing to end the cycle of pain and abuse perpetrated by rapists.  How is it that felons can have parental rights to offspring they forced onto their victims?  Can it be that these misguided right wingers hope that the woman will come together with her abuser and create a family unit? 

It's time to recall that one of Paul Ryan's failed bills was one he co-sponsored with Mr. Akin.

Two peas in a pod.

Representatives Ryan and Akin, in fact, have voted in lockstep on abortion matters since Akin joined Ryan in the House in 2001. Moreover, they teamed up on a controversial bill defining life as beginning at conception.
-- Christian Science Monitor, 8/21/12

I am forced to conclude that yes, it seems that the Republican Party, or at least a significant part of it, appears to favor the rights of rapists over the rights of their victims.

Remember, when you vote for a party, you vote for everyone it in it, and support its entire agenda.  Be very certain who and what you stand for when you vote in the next election.

A Tale of Two Republicans

One set of facts, and two Republican politicians need them to prove different points.

Romney, who is the presumptive Republican candidate for President of the United States, needs to show that Florida's economy is a mess that needs cleaning up. Scott, the Republican governor of Florida with the lowest approval ratings in history, needs to show that Florida's economy is making a strong comeback.

A Romney campaign missive, for example, lists the statistics that make up “Obama’s Florida Record.” The list includes: “795,432 Unemployed Floridians Seeking Work; 676,535 Floridians Who Have Fallen Into Poverty; 105,000 Florida Jobs Lost; $3,369 Decline In Florida’s Median Income; and 45 Percent of All Mortgaged Florida Homes Underwater.”
-- The Miami Herald, August 12, 2012

The governor... tells audiences that “the number of unemployed has gone from 568,000 to 320,000,” “median home prices are up,” and Florida’s job growth rate “has been positive for 23 consecutive months.”
-- The Miami Herald, August 12, 2012

But we're doubtful about the ability to pull one set of facts into two directions.  In the end, what Romney and Scott are creating is the legendary Pushmi-Pulyu. 

And while they are struggling to distort the facts, it will force us to take a closer look at them, to discern the truth that exists beyond partisan politics:

When Obama took office in January 2009, Florida’s unemployment was at 8.7 percent, nearly identical to where it is today. It rose to 11.4 percent in January 2010, had dropped to 10.9 percent by the time Rick Scott took office in January 2011 and has been dropping somewhat steadily since.
-- The Miami Herald, August 12, 2012

So Romney is wrong, and Scott is right; things are getting better in Florida.  But it seems they've been improving in spite of Scott, not because of him.

The Latest Tea Party ''Tempest in a Teapot"

Apparently, the Tea Party's latest wholly manufactured scandal is "the fact that President Obama won't unseal his college transcripts."

In case you're wondering why they want these records unsealed, it's because people are clamoring for Mitt Romney to release more of his tax returns.  It's making him look bad.  And of course, there's Harry Reid claiming that Romney isn't releasing them because he hasn't actually paid taxes because of the nature of his income, which makes him look worse.

Since Mitt stubbornly won't release the information that would completely prove whether or not he paid taxes, that means the only thing left for his supporters to do is to make Obama look bad for not releasing his.  Which is problematic, because he's released decades of tax returns, and so has his running mate.

Obama has also released more copies of his birth certificate - both long and short - than Romney has released tax returns, so they have to come up with something else point at and accuse him of hiding.

But the fact is that we know a great deal about his performance in college from what is public record.

Here are the salient points we know about Obama's education; he transferred from Occidental to Columbia University, a tremendous step up academically. After his first year at Harvard Law School, he was selected as editor of the Harvard Law Review, a position of great prestige that must be earned through academic excellence and superior writing skills. During his second year at Harvard, he was selected to be President of the Review. There is no question that he was an excellent student; that is the only way he could have gained those positions.

"Demanding" his records isn't a search for the truth, it's just another pathetic attempt to make up a scandal where none exists. It's Birtherism 2.0.

The Problem with "Anyone But..." Part 1

In a discussion about the Republican Party and its tendency to bolsterits positions with whopping lies, the other party confessed that they didn't particularly care for Mitt Romney.  "But anyone but Obama will be a better choice."

This is a flawed argument, one only held by those too lazy to actually think it through.  So let's  examine the folly of voting for "Anyone But."

"Anyone But Alex Sink"

In 2010, Florida elected Republican Rick Scott to governor.  Although implicated in a Medicare fraud that resulted in the largest criminal fine in US history, and even though many of his own party  believed that he may have had a part in that fraud (no charges were filed because his underlings  wouldn't rat him out), he beat out his squeaky clean opponent, Democrat Alex Sink, a banker with a solid record of success in the private sector.

As quoted in the Miami Herald on November 3, 2010:

"I wouldn't have voted for him if I had another Republican to choose from,'' said Frank Paruas, a 38-year-old Kendall Republican. "I think Alex Sink isn't a bad person. But I just couldn't vote for anyone in the Democratic party right now.''

He didn't vote for Rick Scott, per se.  He voted for "anyone but" the other party's candidate.

Florida has paid the price since.  And I mean that literally. 

"My egregious blunders only stack this high!"

Right off the bat, he rejected the popular high-speed rail project that was going to begin with a stretch from Tampa to Orlando as the first link.  It would have been paid for with  $2.4 billion in Federal stimulus funding with matching funds from the private sector, and would have resulted in thousands of jobs, with no Florida tax dollars coming out of the state budget.  And since it was only the first stretch of a rail from Miami to Tallahassee, we'd have continued to have return on the investment for decades to come.

To add injury to insult, just a few months later, he approved a 61 mile commuter rail project at a cost of $500 million to state taxpayers.  He slashed other budgets to fund this one train line that would only serve its 61 mile  stretch.

So that's $2.9 billion before the end of his first year.  But there's so much more.

He signed off on a law imposing mandatory drug testing on welfare applicants, even though studies shows that less than two percent of applicants use drugs.  And in fact, the program produced no savings, instead adding another $45,780 to cover the cost of reimbursing the 98% of applicants who passed the test.  And in fact, similar laws had already been struck down.  And so to, was this one. 

At least one lawsuit is still pending, so we don't know how much this turkey will end up costing Florida.  To add insult to injury, he tried to pass a similar law for state workers, which courts quickly swatted down.

Rick Scott has also signed off on legislation that violates the Constitution of the United States.  The most recent example is the voters purge; while the idea isn't a bad one, Florida is required to submit any changes to voter eligibility to the courts, due to the state's egregious civil rights violations in the past.  They didn't.  

Scott is now squandering tax dollars to fight a battle he's already  lost.  Is the purge necessary?  Apparently not; so far, less than one percent of the voters in question have turned out to be ineligible.  Earlier in the year, a judge declared an earlier attack on voters' rights to be unconstitutional.

Scott also approved a law that penalizes any firm that does business with Cuba, a clear violation of Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, which states unequivocally that only Congress has the right to regulate commerce with foreign nations. More tax dollars wasted to fight for a bad law he should have

vetoed.

That's somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.5 billion dollars wasted because voters chose "anyone  but" the other candidate.

But we mustn't forget his "other" accomplishments.

• he gutted education funding by $500 million, and that's not including the millions pulled out to fund "charter" schools.
• attempted to remove the state's prescription drug database, which was successfully showing which doctors were issuing too many prescriptions and which pharmacists were buying more pills than were being dispensed in prescriptions.  He claimed it was to "save money," but it relied on no state funding.
• attempted to privatize prisons over the objections of his hand-picked Secretary of the Department of Corrections, who resigned in protest.  The Florida Legislature ultimately rejected Scott's plans.
• made crippling cuts to programs that serve the severely disabled, potentially risking the lives of thousands of Floridians.
• oversaw the creation of the nation's worst unemployment program, making it extremely difficult for the unemployed to apply for the paltry benefits available; denials for procedural reasons (forms incorrectly filled out) skyrocketed by 200%.
• passed a new PIP auto insurance law that does little to protect drivers, and less to reduce Florida's exorbitant insurance rate.
• is attempting to remove Citizen's Property Insurance Corporation, a state run insurance company created in the wake of Hurricane Andrew that is the only option available to thousands of homeowners.  The group can't turn anyone down, and must charge the highest rate in the market.
  

By the end of his first year, polls showed that voters would then elect Democrat Alex Sink by a wide margin if given an opportunity to do so.  In a more recent Republican Party poll, Scott lost out to an obscure state representative who, ironically, was selected because he was "anyone but Rick Scott."

Florida Legislature Takes a Dump.

The Miami Herald reports that the Florida Legislature has decided to violate the spirit and the letter of the Constitution:

Florida lawmakers passed sweeping but little-noticed legislation this session prohibiting local governments from hiring companies that do business with Cuba.

The law appears to target one of the county’s largest contractors: Odebrecht USA, the Coral Gables-based subsidiary of the giant Brazilian conglomerate. The parent company’s Cuban affiliate is participating in a major expansion at the Port of Mariel.

Miami-Dade legislators, with near-unanimous support of the Florida House of Representatives and Senate, pushed the bill as a way to keep taxpayer dollars out of the hands of repressive regimes.

This also keeps taxpayer money out of the hands of repressive regimes.
And it's cheaper, because there's no lawsuit.

Of course, since it will cost millions to defend this stupid law from the inevitable lawsuit, it will also serve to keep taxpayer dollars out of the hands of our schools, law enforcement agencies, courts, and other crucial agencies.  It's simply a huge waste of time and resources.

You see, the law is unconstitutional.  Don't believe me?

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

• To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
• To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Some of the drooling idiots who perpetrated this Constitutional breach seem blithely unaware of it:

“It puts the decision on the companies that are affected,” said Rep. Michael Bileca, a Miami Republican and one of the bill’s sponsors. “Do they want to do business in Florida, or do they want to do business in these countries?”

Except, of course, that it won't. States do not have the right to regulate trade.  Only Congress has that power.

This isn't the first time a state tried to pull a bone-headed maneuver like this.

Statutes limiting local governments’ contracting decisions based on the vendor’s international work oversteps a state’s power, said Dan O’Flaherty, vice president of the Washington D.C.-based National Foreign Trade Council, which advocates trade with Cuba.

“It’s unconstitutional,” he said, citing a 2000 Trade Council case in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts law restricting state businesses from dealing with companies with ties to Myanmar, formerly known as Burma.

“States are barred by the Supreme Court decision from enacting procurement sanctions targeting companies doing business in foreign country ‘X,’ ” added O’Flaherty, whose organization sent letters to Gov. Rick Scott and House and Senate leaders in opposition.

Yes, it's true: this legislature has wasted our time and tax dollars to enact legislation that has already been judged and thrown out by the Supreme Court.

In a unanimous decision, the court struck down a Massachusetts law that forbade the state government to purchase products from companies doing business with Myanmar, or Burma. It said the law usurped the foreign policy-making powers of the federal government.

"The state act is at odds with the president's intended authority to speak for the United States among the world's nations in developing a comprehensive, multilateral strategy to bring democracy to and improve human rights practices and the quality of life in Burma," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the court.

We can only hope that Governor Scott will veto this steaming turd of a law.  But it's a slim hope; the governor supported drug testing, which the Supreme Court has also ruled against.

Dictionary Fun with the Washington Post.

The Washington Post recently wrote an inflammatory piece that claims that GOP wunderkind Marco Rubio has lied about his past.

...a review of documents — including naturalization papers and other official records — reveals that the Florida Republican’s account embellishes the facts. The documents show that Rubio’s parents came to the United States and were admitted for permanent residence more than two-and-a-half years before Castro’s forces overthrew the Cuban government and took power on New Year’s Day 1959.

The supposed flight of Rubio’s parents has been at the core of the young senator’s political identity, both before and after his stunning tea-party-propelled victory in last year’s Senate election.

The gist of the article is that Rubio's parents were not exiles.  The story insinuates that since they voluntarily came to the United States before Castro took over Cuba, the Rubios can not be considered exiles.

But what, exactly, does exile mean?  Let's look it up.

EXILE

a : the state or a period of forced absence from one's country or home
b : the state or a period of voluntary absence from one's country or home

Well, that pretty much skewers the Post's position.

By the strict definition of the word, it does not matter why they left.  Did they plan to go back?  Since they didn't apply for citizenship until the 1970's, I'd have to say that they originally planned to return to Cuba at some point - and in fact, they did so, in 1961.  Finding that Castro was no improvement over Batista, they returned to the United States for good.

And if the simple fact that apparently no one at the Post owns a dictionary weren't enough, the blog Random Pixels found plenty of news stories in a Miami newspaper that refer to Cuban exiles, starting as early as 1948.

The Miami Herald responded to the Post article with an analysis of its own, showing once again that liberal media bias is a myth.

The Post also says "the supposed flight of Rubio’s parents has been at the core of the young senator’s political identity." That's a stretch. The actual story of the "flight" is far less emphasized than the fact that Rubio's an Hispanic Republican, and the child of immigrants and exiles

Further undermining the Post's claim that Rubio has been lying about his family history, the Miami Herald talked to Rubio about his pending autobiography, and touched on this very subject!

Rubio clearly told us his parents came here before Castro took power. He struggled to recall the year (this isn't in the story, it's in my notes) and said it was in "57 or 58 or 59."

When asked pointedly: Was it before the revolution? Rubio said it was before the revolution.

But the Herald article also notes:

Rubio's inability to remember these specific dates isn't much of a surprise. Rubio is sometimes sloppy. When he was in the Florida House, he failed to disclose a loan at one point and fill out his financial disclosures properly. He rung up a host of personal and questionable expenses on a Republican Party of Florida credit card and couldn't show how they furthered party business.

This "sloppiness" is why I won't ever vote for him for any office.  I've known a lot of "sloppy" people.  It's not evidence of dishonesty, only a lack of attention to details.  And in Rubio's case, some of those details are pretty important.

But Marco Rubio is unquestionably a child of exiles.  Whether he's a good candidate for office is an exercise best left for the individual.

Hemorhoids Get a Bum Rap

Last month, you may recall that The Orlando Sentinel declared that only hemorrhoids are more unpopular than Florida Governor Rick Scott:

The first-time governor — less than a year into his term, typically a honeymoon period for newly electeds — now has an approval rating of 27 percent.

That makes him one of the least popular politicians in the United States and only slightly more popular than a hemorrhoid.

I though that this might be a bit of hyperbole.  So I polled my readers to see if there was any truth to this at all.  After all, I'm always going on about how important it is to be honest, to report the facts, and to avoid pointless rhetoric.  Time to practice what I preach.

And of course, there isn't any truth to it at all.

As you can see here, hemorrhoids are actually more than twice as popular as Governor Rick Scott, or Libya's ruthless dictator, Mohamar Ghadafi.

People would rather have hemorrhoids than Carrot Top, but Carrot Top is preferred over the company of either Ghadafi or Scott. 

This makes perfect sense: in choosing between painful rectal itching and the comedy stylings of Carrot Top, one must factor in the fact that there's a cream for hemorrhoids. 

In fact, it turns out that only Rev. Fred Phelps, bigot-in-chief of the hate group Westboro Baptist Church is less popular than Florida Governor Rick Scott.

So I'm afraid we have to label Scott Maxwell's claim that "Rick Scott is only slightly more popular than hemorrhoids" as false.

Well, Now We Know.

Back during the election, when Rick Scott was swearing up, down, and sideways that he had no idea his company was committing fraud even though he signed paperwork that flatly stated that they were, I said that either he was bald-faced liar, or incompetent.

Well, good news, everybody;  he's incompetent!

As reported in the Sun-Sentinel, more than 400 state bureaucrats that had been told to resign so Scott could replace them with cronies stooges minions people of his own have now been asked to stay on, so he can fire them later.

So we call relax; Scott is not a morally bankrupt thug intent on sucking us dry, he's an incompetent dithering idiot who will surround himself with morally bankrupt thugs intent on sucking us dry.

Remember, you can thank Frank Paraus and thousands of other mouth-breathing partisan zombies for voting the Party link instead of voting for someone they felt would be  a quality governor.

Sink, or Scott?

Who should be the next governor of Florida, Alex Sink, or Rick Scott?  It's a no-brainer; Alex Sink is the only viable candidate running.

Let's look at the recent debate:

Sink points out that when Scott was the head honcho of the company he founded, the company he was running committed Medicare Fraud, and the company wound up paying $1.7 billion in fines for ripping off taxpayers

Scott rebutted that the company Sink worked for was fined $6.7 million dollars for misleading investors.

Let's compare those two fines for a moment:

SCOTT - $1,700,000,000
SINK   -           $6,750,000

Notice anything?   If the size of the fine is commensurate with the size of the crime, it's obvious whose crime is bigger.

But consider:
Scott was the founder of Columbia/HCA.  He ran the company. He was the top dog.  He set policies.  Those policies included committing Medicare fraud.

Sink worked for Nations Bank. She was an employee - a highly situated employee, but someone hired on nonetheless.  Policy was set by the home office, and didn't go through Sink.

Neither was charged with a crime.  But in a civil suit, Scott claims that although he signed all the reports and letters that indicated he knew about his company's crimes, he never actually read what he was signing.  His defense was he didn't know what his company, the one he founded, and the one he was running, was doing.

From The Miami Herald:

"I don't know what the document said..."

From the Palm Beach Post:

"It was a legal dispute that was settled," Scott said of the lawsuit against the Solantic health clinic chain. "It has nothing to do with running for governor..."

Actually, it has everything to do with running for governor; the governor is responsible for signing bills into laws, and to sign budgets to make them official.  And Scott is on the record stating that he can't be bothered to read everything he puts his signature on.

In The Miami Herald, he claims that he "took responsibility" for his company's actions.

"What happens in companies is that you have to take responsibility for what happens under your watch.  Mistakes that were made you take responsibility as CEO and you do everything you can to make sure those things don't happen. What I tell people is that's what I'll do as governor.''

Footage from his actual testimony:

The man who started with nothing and ended up running a multi-billion dollar hospital chain doesn't know what "predecessor" means.  Or "chain" (as in his hospital chain).  Or "occupancy."  Or "market." 

He'd have us believe that he didn't know anything about what his company was doing; and he's running on the strength of his administration of that company.

And what about Sink, and the fines her company paid?  Investigators didn't find her to be involved in it in any way.

Sink has been very open, meeting with all 16 of Florida's major daily newspapers, and answering questions posed by their editorial boards.  Scott refused to sit down with any of the newspapers' editorial boards. And his childish response, when it was pointed out that all 16 newspapers are endorsing Sink?

"Most of them endorsed Barack Obama. You're an Obama liberal. That's why they endorsed you," he said.
- Palm Beach Post.

Interesting theory, but I have a better one; since you wouldn't talk with any of them, they went with the candidate who came across as open and honest: the one who bothered to talk with them.

I have no doubt that Rick Scott would run Florida the way he ran Columbia/HCA; defraud taxpayers as a matter of course, sign anything put before him, and claim not to know why Floridians are paying through the nose.

Rick Scott; Liar or Idiot: Either way a Bad Choice.

I don't know which is worse; that Rick Scott ran a company that bilked taxpayers out of millions of dollars, or that his statements defending himself are so incredibly lame.

He's stated numerous times that he wasn't aware that his company was breaking the law; of course, as the CEO, it was his job to be aware of it.  Just as it will be his job as governor to know when legislation serves a legitimate need, and makes good use of taxpayer dollars.

And now, the Miami Herald reports that he was aware of his company's indiscretions.

The warnings were contained in the company's annual public reports to stockholders that Scott, now the Republican candidate for Florida governor, signed as Columbia/HCA's president and chief executive officer.

So it turns out that Scott has been lying the entire time.  But he offers up yet another incredibly lame defense:

"I don't know what the document said. I'm sure they used boilerplate that said something about they used all their efforts to comply with all the laws.''

And yet, he signed it.  He signed a document certifying that he'd read it, and that it was accurate.

Hospital expert James Roberts, now general counsel with Gainesville-based Shands Healthcare, said Columbia/HCA was playing a "roulette wheel,'' betting that the risk of fines was lower than the profitability of the physician arrangements.

Roberts agreed that the language about physician payments was "boilerplate'' but said Scott -- an attorney as well as a hospital CEO -- should have known better.

He's right.  "Ignorance of the law" is no excuse, particularly for a lawyer.

And again, what is the chief role of the governor?  To sign stuff.  To sign bills into laws.  To sign budget declarations.  To sign pardons excusing convicted felons.  To sign execution orders for condemned murderers.

Rick Scott couldn't be bothered to read documents in the past, critical legal documents, declarations of his company's intentions.  And now he expects us to elect him to a job where signing stuff is Job One?

Again, here's Rick Scott's statement on the matter:

"What happens in companies is that you have to take responsibility for what happens under your watch.  Mistakes that were made you take responsibility as CEO and you do everything you can to make sure those things don't happen. What I tell people is that's what I'll do as
governor.''

But Scott hasn't taken responsibility for any of it; he's done nothing but make excuses time and again: he didn't know, he wasn't told, he doesn't remember.

I have no doubt that he will do for Florida what he did with Columbia/HCA; and that's a problem.

Florida deserves a governor who will at least read what they are signing, and stand behind their actions later.  We deserve better than Rick Scott.

Amendment 4; Is it really "Vote for Everything?"

This is the first of a series investigating Amendment 4.  Future articles will address statements and claims made by both the supporters and the opposition to the amendment.

Today, we examine the claim the Florida Supreme Court ruled that Amendment 4 dictates that we "vote on everything."

According to Ballotpedia. this is the current wording on the ballot:

Amendment 4: Referenda required for adoption and amendment of local government comprehensive land use plans.

Establishes that before a local government may adopt a new comprehensive land use plan, or amend a comprehensive land use plan, the proposed plan or amendment shall be subject to vote of the electors of the local government by referendum, following preparation by the local planning agency, consideration by the governing body and notice. Provides definitions.

On the face of it, it means that the city wouldn't be able to change an industrial district, like say, the marinas along the Miami river, into a residential area.  They'd have to write up a referendum and put it on the ballot, and let the voters decide if the zoning can change.

Real world examples of the kind of radical changes to zoning include the City of Miami's attempt to allow a condominium project to be built on the grounds of Mercy Hospital, or the numerous attempts to change the Urban Development Boundary to allow shopping centers to be built in the Everglades.

Citizens for Lower Taxes claim that the amendment would require citizens to "Vote on Everything," a stark contrast to Florida Hometown Democracy's claim that it would only come up a few times each year.

According to the Citizens for Lower Taxes website:

The Florida Supreme Court  plainly indicates that Amendment 4 would trigger votes not simply on all land use items, but, in fact, on every change to a local government's comprehensive plan. Citing statute, the court points out that Amendment 4 would lead to referenda on:

"A capital improvement element; a future land-use plan element; a traffic circulation element, a sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, and natural groundwater aquifer recharge element; a conservation element; a recreation and open space element; a housing element; a coastal management element; an intergovernmental coordination element; a transportation element; an airport master plan; a public buildings and related facilities element; a recommended community design element; a general area redevelopment element; a safety element; a historical and scenic preservation element; an economic element ..."

The problem is, that's not actually what the finding says.  Sure, that entire section is a verbatim quote, it's just taken entirely out of context. The list is actually part of existing Florida State Stature 163.3177, "Required and optional elements of a comprehensive plan."

Back in 2005, the Court was asked to rule on whether or not Amendment 4 followed the proscribed template per the dictates of the Florida State Constitution.

The Attorney General petitions this Court for an advisory opinion regarding the validity of a proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution submitted by Florida Hometown Democracy, Inc., and the accompanying Financial Impact Statement submitted by the Financial Impact Estimating Conference.

...the Court limits its inquiry to two issues: (1) whether the amendment violates the single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3, Florida Constitution, and (2) whether the ballot title and summary violate the requirements of section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (2003).

The Court was addressing a specific complaint about  the amendment's ballot wording;  specifically, the first line:

Public participation in local government comprehensive land use planning benefits the conservation and protection of Florida’s natural resources and scenic beauty, and the long-term quality of life of Floridians.

The court writes:

"The first sentence of the ballot summary in this case is misleading... because it focuses the voter on “scenic beauty” and “natural resources,” while local comprehensive plans include multiple components, many of which do not involve strictly environmental or aesthetic considerations.  Section 163.3177(6)-(7), Florida Statutes (2004), sets out the required and optional elements of comprehensive plans, which include..."

In other words, the Court is addressing the fact that the wording of the first sentence indicates that the amendment is to allow us to vote on "scenic beauty" and "natural resources,"  when the reality is that they rarely come into play in most comprehensive plans.  It is not stating that the amendment requires a referendum on each and every one those elements in ss 163.3177, just that many of those elements would be included in a referendum to change a local comprehensive plan. That being the case, saying it was for "scenic beauty" and "natural resources" is misleading.  On that ground, they ruled against the amendment.

But that's the 2005 ruling.  In 2006, the court found in favor of the revised wording (see top of page) of the amendment in SC06-161:

We conclude that the ballot title and summary sufficiently explain the chief purpose of the 2005 Proposed Amendment and do not mislead the public. 

So the Florida Supreme Court says it's Constitutional. 

But that wasn't the complaint; Citizens for Lower Taxes maintains that the amendment means we'll have to "vote for everything:"

Voters will be asked to vote not only on big development projects but also on all minor or technical changes to their local comprehensive plan.

But what does the Supreme Court actually say about what the amendment will lead people to vote on?

The Act does not provide a descriptive definition of a “comprehensive plan,” but instead defines the term as “a plan that meets the requirements of ss. 163.3177 and 163.3178.”  § 163.3164(4), Fla. Stat. (2005)

And what does that mean, exactly?  The Court clarifies:

The 2005 Proposed Amendment defines a “local planning agency” as “the agency of a local government that is responsible for the preparation of a comprehensive land use plan and plan amendments after public notice and hearings and for making recommendations to the governing body of the local government regarding the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive land use plan.” 

In other words, the Court is saying that the Amendment means that voters will be asked if the land can be used for a purpose, but that the details that enable that purpose remain in the hands of the local government.

In 2005, the outdated ruling favored by the amendment's opponent, puts it even more clearly:

...the proposed amendment at issue in this case alters only one step in an already established process.  It does not give the public the power to establish policy, collect funds, administer those funds, or adjudicate liability.  In fact, the statutory scheme already in place allows local governments to utilize a referendum process in regard to a plan amendment if the amendment affects more than five parcels of land.

Contrary to what Citizens for Lower Taxes claims on its website, the Florida Supreme Court is not saying that Amendment 4 means we'll have to "Vote on Everything" at all.  Quite the opposite, it finds that existing government agencies will still decide what goes into the comprehensive land use plan.  It just means that the voters, and not local governments, decide if the comprehensive change goes into effect.

Well, it certainly disincentives your re-election.

This is the Quote of the Day over at Deus Ex Malcontent:

"(Extending unemployment benefits) doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work. I'm sure most of them would like work and probably have tried to seek it, but you can't argue that it's a job enhancer. If anything, as I said, it's a disincentive. And the same thing with the COBRA extension and the other extensions here."

-- Republican Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona

To which I am compelled to reply:

Mr. Kyl, NOT extending unemployment compensation ALSO does NOT create jobs.

If you've ever actually collected unemployment - which I did 14 years ago when my employer ran out of money and shut down - you'd know that it's absolutely no disincentive to seeking out work. Unemployment compensation is nowhere near what you make working - by design. In fact, you blow through savings and credit very quickly when you are collecting only a portion of what had been a salary just above the federal poverty level.

The reality is that when you don't have unemployment compensation, you blow through your savings and credit even faster, which means, in this economy, that you lose your home and your insurance and mount up insurmountable debt long before you find another job. With nearly half of all homeowners underwater in my region, that hurts mortgage companies and banks, which hurts businesses, which hurts those who still are fortunate to have jobs.

Failure to extend unemployment compensation does not benefit a single American taxpayer; it does not create a single job, it does not enhance a single business, it does not prevent a single American from losing their homes, and it does not stop a single business from folding.

Extending them helps fourteen million American workers. It helps ten million families keep their homes. It prevents millions of bankruptcies, saving hundreds of thousands of small businesses.

So please don't tell us that not doing it is somehow better than doing it. It's just not.

Cheney's Staff Caught Fibbing

Notice it wasn't his doctors saying he had a "heart attack," it was is office. Medical professionals won't get caught stating that Cheney has a heart. That's why hospital spokespersons keep saying "chest pains."

Ripped from the Headlines

So here are the headlines:
Obama awarded 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

Information is temporarily unavailable.

NASA crashes on the moon -- twice

And here's the story I expect to find on Fox News:

OBAMA AWARDED "PEACE" PRIZE, BOMBS MOON!

(h/t to Tom the Alien Cat, on alt.callahans)

Marlins Deal Smells Fishier

From the Miami Herald:

The owner of a construction company slated to build a new baseball stadium in Miami faced a previous FEC fine over campaign contributions; he blamed 'record keeping' problems.

Nothing like a hint of corruption to taint an already unpopular swindle, hmmm?

Oh, the "problem" with the records? His former employer maintains that Bob Moss was fired for reimbursing employees for their donations to candidates, and he maintains that he quit.

Centex-Rooney's parent company, Centex Corporation in Dallas, investigated Moss' employee bonus program and informed the FEC, records show. Moss reimbursed 10 employees, according to a 2003 letter from Centex attorneys to the FEC's enforcement division. Moss himself was the biggest beneficiary of the bonus program -- the company reimbursed him $42,175 for contributions.

The Centex-Rooney letter said the company had 'moved quickly and decisively to address the problems at Rooney. Mr. Moss' employment has been terminated.''

On Wednesday, Moss said: ``I actually resigned from Centex before the investigation.''

Oh, OK. He quit BEFORE they caught him breaking the law. That's completely different than being FIRED for being caught breaking the law.

Boss of the GOP

At last, the real leader of the Grand Old Party reveals himself.

Bobby Jindal: Out of the mouth of Booby.

LooseScrew Louisiana Governor Bobby 'Booby' Jindal made so many stupid statements in his "rebuttal" of President Obama's state of the union address, it's hard to know where to begin. But since he's a rabid radical idjit Republican, we'll start with tax cuts.

... Republicans put forward plans to create jobs by lowering income tax rates for working families, cutting taxes for small businesses, strengthening incentives for businesses to invest in new equipment and hire new workers, and stabilizing home values by creating a new tax credit for home-buyers. These plans would cost less and create more jobs.

Wow, this is stupid on several levels:

1. "Lowering income taxes" does nothing to "create more jobs." Creating more jobs creates more jobs.
2. If you are unemployed, you are not paying income tax because you have no income to tax. So lowering the income tax does nothing for those on unemployment.
   
3. Simply lowering taxes on business does not insure that the business will hire new workers or that it will re-invest in new equipment, especially if no one is buying products.
   
4. Creating a new tax credit for home-buyers won't help people afford homes if they have no jobs to finance the homes. All it does is increase the size of our national debt by decreasing revenue.
   
5. Creating a new tax credit for home-buyers also doesn't create more jobs. At the very best, it may help some realtors stay in business - IF they can find people who suddenly can pay for homes while unemployed.

And of course, immediately on the parrot-cries of "cut taxes!" he follows up with a familiar whine:

Instead of trusting us to make wise decisions with our own money...

Well, thanks to Bush et. al, a lot of us DID make decisions with our own money; we invested it. And we've all of lost buckets of money. Millions of Americans suddenly face bankruptcy and foreclosure. And those are the lucky ones. The ones who haven't lost their jobs.

And then Jindal starts chewing on his own foot:

$300 million to buy new cars for the government, $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a "magnetic levitation" line from Las Vegas to Disneyland, and $140 million for something called "volcano monitoring." Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C.

Let's break this down, shall we?

$300 million to buy new cars for the government

Why would the government spend 300 million dollars to buy new cars? Could it be because, I dunno, our automotive industry is about to collapse?

"Shares of General Motors are trading at prices last seen in the 1950s, their value cut in half in just eight weeks. Ford and Chrysler are in even worse shape, analysts say." - CS Monitor, July 2, 2008

Who else can buy enough cars to make a difference, Booby? Or maybe you think that putting millions of Americans out of work really is a good thing? I guess there are no automobile dealerships in Lousiana.

The government buys $300 million worth of cars, and they sell off the exisiting fleet to Americans for a good price: everyone benefits. But I guess that's just logical. The government should drive cars into the ground, so that we spend that $300 million on towing and repairs, and then toss in the costs of workers unable to perform their tasks because they are either stranded in their broken-down vehicles, or can't accomplish the task because the vehicle is in the shop.

I guess we could rent them a car until their old decrepit car is fixed.

And we might have to; remember, we're letting the Big Three collapse: no dealership to repair anything, and when the automakers went down, they took their parts suppliers with them.

$8 billion for high-speed rail projects

And why is this a bad idea, exactly? High Speed rail is something that every other reasonably advanced country in the world has. That the US lacks this basic mode of transportation is beyond pathetic; it makes us a laughing stock. We need high-speed rails. This exactly the kind of project the government should be doing to stimulate the economy; building it creates jobs, running it creates jobs, and its existence spawns new business opportunities, and no one else can afford to do it.

Every tried flying from Fort Lauderdale to Tallahassee on business? It's about $900 for a direct flight, but you can knock it down to $600 if you make connections - through Pittsburgh!!! So we drive it; it's only about six hours each way. Gas, plus mileage (it's a business trip, remember!) and the hotel room (maybe you can commute 12 hours and get a day's work in there too, but most of us are only human.)

And remember 9-11, and how all the airplanes were grounded? No one is taking a train off-course, Booby. It will always be on the tracks.

$140 million for something called "volcano monitoring."

They call it that because they monitor these potential hazards to life and limb we call volcanoes. Now you don't have any in the mucky cesspool that you are responsible for, but we have over 150 volcanoes in the United States, and many of them are near major population centers. I remember when Mount Saint Helens blew off one third of its mass and killed 57 people; we were lucky that it was the side facing away from the major population centers. Alaska alone has over 80 volcanic sites; and many of those could affect millions of people living around the Pacific by creating a tsunami if they erupt.

But Booby has more foot to chew:

Democratic leaders say their legislation will grow the economy. What it will do is grow the government, increase our taxes down the line, and saddle future generations with debt.

Unlike the Bush Adminstration, which grew the goverment, increased our taxes, and saddled future generations with debt. Or the Reagan Adminstration, which grew the government, increased our taxes, and saddled future generations with debt. Oh, and that's both Bush administrations, by the way, although the most recent Bush saddled us with more debt than his father and Reagan combined. The Republican congress of the Bush 42 era spent money like drunken sailors on a stolen Amex Platinum card, unimpeded by InCurious George.

Republicans shrink government and cut taxes? Not since Nixon!

On to health care. I used to work in the Health Care industry. I know quite a lot about it, as a result. So what's the GOP Boy Blunder's take?

To strengthen our economy, we also need to address the crisis in healthcare. Republicans believe in a simple principle: No American should have to worry about losing their health coverage -- period. We stand for universal access to affordable health care coverage. What we oppose is universal government-run health care. Health care decisions should be made by doctors and patients, not by government bureaucrats.

You know who else shouldn't be making health car decisions? Accountants and stockholders, that's who. Our health care is overpriced for only one reason: we gave it to middle-men; the insurance industry. Any health care transaction should consist of exactly two parties: the patient, and the health-care provider. You want to reduce health care costs? Eliminate everything but catastrophic care coverage.

Funny, that doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in his speech.

Ooh, next up is education; let's see what he has to say:

To strengthen our economy, we also need to make sure every child in America gets the best possible education. After Katrina, we reinvented the New Orleans school system, opening dozens of new charter schools, and creating a new scholarship program that is giving parents the chance to send their children to private or parochial schools of their choice.

[sniff sniff] Smells like vouchers to me.

Louisiana is still at the bottom of education rankings.

All voucher systems are inherently and fatally flawed; first, they pull money out of already cash-strapped public schools. Second, private schools, as privately-owned businesses, are under no legal obligation to accept students using vouchers to pay for all or part of the tuition. Third, schools do not have to keep under-acheiving children. Fourth, because they are private, they are not bound to the same systems of measurements as public schools; in other words, there is no evidence whatsoever that private schools actually do a better job of teaching; their success is more likely due to the fact that they only accept students who are already academic acheivers. All a voucher system really does is insure that those students who can't get into private schools will be stuck in schools that have been stripped of any chance at excellence.

Oh, but Booby is far from finished parading his idiocy!

To strengthen our economy, we must promote confidence in America by ensuring ours is the most ethical and transparent system in the world. In my home state, there used to be saying: At any given time, half of Louisiana was said to be half under water, and the other half is under indictment. No one says that anymore.

Not since Katrina actually put half the state underwater, destroyed a lot of homes and left thousands dead, anyway.

Last year, we passed some of the strongest ethics laws in the nation and today, Louisiana has turned her back on the corruption of the past.

The corruption of...last year. This is supposed to impress anyone? "We've been honest for six months?" You are boasting about this?

Sheesh. I wonder if he was put up as the result of a bet? "Bet you don't have the guts to put the idiot in front of the cameras!" "oh yeah? How much?"

....dangerous enemies still seek our destruction. Now is no time to dismantle the defenses that have protected this country for hundreds of years, or make deep cuts in funding for our troops.

Deep cuts? Who's calling for deep cuts? Wasn't it...Bobby Jindal? He was just calling for lower taxes and reduction in spending...so, if we're cutting taxes, but still spending billions on national defense that we don't actually have, we're passing on debt to our descendants...which Jindal was just slapping Democrats for doing. Hypocritical much, Booby?

Tonight, on behalf of our leaders in Congress and my fellow Republican governors, I say this: Our party is determined to regain your trust. We will do so by standing up for the principles that we share, the principles you elected us to fight for,

Actually, Booby, you guys lost the national election. We elected them. We chose their principles, not yours.

All that said, I do have to say that I'm not happy about the Stimulus bill. I'm frankly appalled that it was passed without anyone having had the opportunity to review the damned thing. If we're distributing so much money, I want rock-solid, understandable, and fair rules dictating how that money is going to be used. We should have created policy, not project lists.

But the fact remains that cutting taxes does not create jobs, nor does it reduce the debt that is the legacy of the Bush 42 Republican congress. It's the mantra of a party in the throes of senility, spewing forth from addled brains, punctuated with spittle and rife with dementia.

If Jindal is really the best the GOP can do, it's time they wiped the drool from their chins and admitted that the party of Lincoln is lost to us.