When the Dog Catches the Car

When it comes to Republicans one has to wonder just how stupid stupid is. Who knew creating a health care program was so complicated, Donald Trump asked recently. Considering we are only in March and we are talking about Republicans, I am quite sure that stupid is more stupid than we thought because anyone paying attention over the last seven years knew creating a health care plan is extremely complicated.

Which is what the Republicans in Congress are finally discovering. Their plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare as GOP leaders like to say, shows that ignorance, stupidity, and hypocrisy knows no bounds when it comes to Republicans and their voters.

Yes, I know we are being told by liberal pundits and others that we liberals should not assail Trump voters, that we should not anger them any more than we have with out elitist views. We should, as the pundits like to say, separate the voters from the candidate and his buffoonery in an effort to bridge the gap that keeps so much of America divided. We must embrace the pain of the white working-class. Criticism of that forgotten America just drives them closer to the Trumps of the world.

Well, making nice with such people will not be easy. They asked for this, and they now have what they have desired for years.

Consider that Kentucky, for example, elected two Republicans to the U.S. Senate, both of whom declared that they would vote to repeal Obamacare. The people who sent Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell to Washington want Obamacare repealed, in part because many of them see it as socialism run amok. Those voters hate Obama and Obamacare.

Yet, they embrace the Affordable Care Act, which gave many Kentucky voters insurance for the first time in their lives. That the Affordable Care Act and Obamacare are one in the same somehow escaped those voters for years.

Kentucky, when it had a Democratic governor, created a very efficient and effective state health portal for those seeking health insurance. The state chose to expand its Medicaid program, and its workers signed up thousands of people who never had health care coverage..

So what did Kentucky voters do?

They elected a Republican governor who is pushing to make the Affordable Care Act and Kentucky's state of the art heath insurance web portal as ineffective as possible. They re-elected McConnell to the Senate. Now many of those same voters fear they will lose their newly obtained health care coverage.

You can't make this stuff up. The Republicans are set to give those Kentucky -- and all the other Republican -- voters what they have been clamoring for for years: A repeal of Obamacare.

The House plan released Monday shows that while Republicans knew how to use a hatred of Obama and Obamacare to generate votes, they have no idea of how to create a health care plan that will not result in millions of people losing insurance or finding themselves unable to afford coverage, putting much of the nation back where it was in those dark days before Obamacare.

It is not just in Kentucky.

Republicans across the country voted again and again for men and women who promised to kill Obamacare. Yet, those voters are now wondering how a loss of Obamacare will affect them and their loved ones. Will Nana be able to stay in her nursing home if Medicaid is block granted? Will I be able to afford my health insurance if my government subsidy is only $3,000 a year?

The list of questions go on and on. The answers are simple.

If Republican legislators have their way Nana will not be able to stay in her nursing home, and you will not be able to afford health care coverage. So be thankful. You are getting what you wanted since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010.

The so-called socialism that is Obamacare will be decimated under the GOP plan released Monday by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. Subsidies to working class families will be cut dramatically. The wealthy will get the biggest breaks. Medicaid will eventually be slashed under block granting.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Republican legislators show a total disdain for helping the American people, and they do so under the guise of protecting "freedom."

Affordable health insurance for all Americans is not a right, according to Republicans, but a privilege. If a person wants health coverage, especially someone who is not well off, then that person needs to get rid of his or her iPhone to pay for health insurance. In the world of Republicans everything is a trade off in which the only people who should get government help are the people who need it the least.

Luckily, some Republicans, including Senators Rob Portman of Ohio, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Cory Gardner of Colorado, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, have assailed the House "replacement" plan because of its threat to Medicaid, which was expanded in their states.

But others, such as Paul and Mike Lee of Utah, attacked the House plan as not being draconian and heartless enough. Paul labeled the House plan "Obamacare lite." Other conservatives called it "Obamacare 2.0."

The Koch brothers and their network of billionaire sponsored "grassroots" organizations are set to attack the Republican plan as not going far enough to stamp out the socialism of Obamacare. The Heritage Foundation, the organization that came up with the individual mandate and created the blueprint that became Romneycare and later Obamacare, has already gone on the attack in hopes of destroying any remnants of the plan it created as an alternative to Hillarycare in the 1990s.

Of course much of this may be a way for Republicans to provide coverage for those members who now realize it was easier to promise a repeal of Obamacare when there was no chance of it happening than it is to actually come up with a replacement plan that does not harm constituents.

Either way there are some basic things we must remember. The year is less than three months old, and the ignorance, stupidity, and hypocrisy of  Republicans and their voters will be on full display for some time to come.

Republicans Say the Most _______ Things

Art Linkletter was right – kids do say the darndest things. If he was alive today he could start a new show – Republicans say the scariest, most dangerous, most asinine things.

That is especially true when it comes to guns, rape, and anything Obama.

Take a look at some of the recent statements from Republican leaders and their followers, particularly the Tea Party and evangelical Christians.

The National Rifle Association, whose top leaders have pushed arming teachers across the country in response to the Newtown, Conn., shooting, have vowed to fight any gun control legislation and have been warning members that President Barack Obama is coming after their guns. That argument has led to a right-wing declaration that a civil war is brewing in this nation.

For example, James Yeager, the chief executive of Tactical Response, which teaches people weapons handling and other tactical skills in Tennessee, produced a YouTube video in which he declared that he will kill anyone who tries to confiscate his weapons. In the clip, Yeager said increased gun measures would “spark a civil war” in which he would be “glad to fire the first shot.”

“If it goes an inch further,” he said, “I’m going to start killing people.” While he now states that his pledge to “start killing people” was just overwrought anger, he has not backed away from his overall claims.

No wonder since Fox has become the major purveyor of the gun control will lead to insurrection meme.

Bill O’Reilly recently warned that we could have a civil war if Obama uses executive orders to alter gun control laws. O’Reilly said Obama could “chose to be a good President or whether he just wants to have blood in the streets.” O’Reilly went on to suggest that the President should cut spending on such things as Medicare and Social Security to avoid armed conflict.

O’Reilly was not the only rabid Fox employee to talk about insurrection. Several conservative – is there any other kind? – Fox contributors compared the President to Hitler and Stalin, and cited Nazi Germany to argue against his policies. They also warned of civil war, revolution, and insurrection if Obama’s policies on guns, spending, and entitlements are enacted.

Brian Kilmeade and Steve Doocy told their Fox and Friends audience that if the Obama government tried to confiscate guns nationally “there would be an insurrection.” A short time later, Todd Starnes, a Fox radio host tweeted: “I can assure you the federal government will not be confiscating the Starnes family guns,” which seems reasonable since there has been no recommendation that federal officers go door to door taking guns out of people’s homes.

Columnist Arthur Herman wrote in a Jan. 3 op-ed on FoxNews.com that riots in Argentina foreshadowed a coming civil war in America.

“Some have said my warnings about a coming civil war between makers and takers are exaggerated,” Herman wrote. “It’s true that Argentina’s politicians have been waging class warfare since Juan and Eva Peron – and they aren’t fazed when it turns bloody. Obama and the Democrats are relative newcomers to the game. But Argentina reveals who really suffers when those who create a nation’s wealth get mugged by those who spend it.”

Then there are the rape comments.

Months after Todd R. Akin and Richard Mourdock destroyed any Republican chances of picking up U.S. Senate seats with asinine comments about rape, Republican Rep. Phil Gingrey of Georgia decided to come to Akin’s defense by saying Akin was “partly right” in his declaration that in the case of legitimate rape, women’s bodies have the ability to shut down to avoid pregnancy.

“I’ve delivered lots of babies, and I know about these things,” said Gingrey, a former OB/GYN. “It is true. We tell infertile couples all the time that are having trouble conceiving because of the woman not ovulating, ‘Just relax. Drink a glass of wine. And don’t be so tense and uptight because all that adrenaline can cause you not to ovulate.’ So he was partially right wasn’t he? But the fact that a woman may have already ovulated 12 hours before she is raped, you’re not going to prevent a pregnancy there by a woman’s body shutting anything down because the horse has already left the barn, so to speak. And yet the media took that and tore it apart.”

As if such wild comments are not enough, Republicans have threatened to shut down the government or default on the nation's debt in an effort to force the President and Democrats to cut the safety net.

But the most egregious attacks may revolve around Obama’s efforts to fill his cabinet. Republicans have attacked him for seeking like-minded appointees. They have also assailed him for recommending a former Republican Senator, Chuck Hagel, for a major security post. Apparently, reaching across the aisle for talented people is against the rules.

Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, says Hagel should not be confirmed as Secretary of Defense because Hagel was against imposing economic sanctions on Iran. One would think that would make Hagel a good candidate in the eyes of the GOP since its members spent the last election saying the sanctions are weak and ineffective. The Iran sanctions, according to Republicans, made Obama weaker than Jimmy Carter.

Then there are the attacks against feeding poor children in America. Guest on Fox Business’ Varney & Co. spent a great deal of time recently claiming that children receiving food assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are becoming a “group of entitlement nation children.” Feeding those kids through the SNAP program, the Fox contributors said, means those children will grow up with a sense of entitlement that will hamper their productivity throughout life.

We can’t forget the comments concerning same-sex marriages. According to one conservative preacher, an acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex marriages mark the end of time. The pastor, Scott Lively, who is on trial for inciting human rights abuses against members of the LGBT community in Uganda, recently said that the great flood of the Bible was caused by people writing songs about same-sex marriages.

“We need to remember that in the time leading up to the Flood what the rabbis teach about the last straw for God before He brought the Flood was when they started writing wedding songs to homosexual marriage and Jesus said that you’ll know the End Times because it will be like the days of Noah,” Lively said in an interview with Sandy Rios of the American Family Association.

“I think this is the issue of the End Times, homosexuality,” he continued in the interview. “It’s present, if you do a careful investigation of all the scriptures dealing with this from the beginning and all the way to the end, God is painting a very clear picture that this represents the outer extent of rebellion against Him in a society and the last thing that happens before wrath comes.”

His comments echoed those of another conservative southern preacher, Aaron Fruh of Alabama, who also blamed the biblical flood on homosexuality. Fruh said God “knew that the people on the earth were going to destroy themselves through same-sex marriage.”

Of course, there is also the denial of climate change (Fox asked if the government faked the hottest year on record data released recently); Wyoming’s effort to nullify any federal firearms regulations by making it a felony punishable by up to five years in prison for any federal official to enforce any gun laws; the downplaying of a government default on the nation and the world economy; the hostage style negotiations over the debt limit; and Sean Hannity’s attacks against John Brennan.

Indeed, Republicans say the scariest, most dangerous, and most asinine things.

Let America be America

If you are still struggling with who won the 2012 presidential election then let me give you a hint: America.

Was it simply because President Barack Hussein Obama was re-elected to the White House, defeating Willard Mitt Romney? No. America won because more people than expected voted, and in doing so they rejected the idea that we must become a callous, vengeful, and barbarous nation, one in which selfishness, greed, and xenophobia stand supreme.

Indeed, voters did not give any candidate or party an overwhelming “mandate” as many have said, but the majority did speak loudly about the type of nation they want. They spoke not only in the voting booth, but also in exit polls in which they addressed questions the answers to which cannot always be discerned by analyzing election results.

Yes, about 48 percent of Americans supported Romney, and about 51 percent supported Obama. More important, though, was the number of voters who in exit polls supported a kinder America. For example, 60 percent of those polled say they agree with increasing taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year as part of a balanced debt reduction plan, compared with 30 percent who oppose any tax increases. In addition, a majority of voters supported protecting the safety net. If the exit polls reflect how people really feel, then that means even some people who voted for Romney support a more balanced approach to dealing with the nation’s problems.

Or as E.J. Dionne said in a recent Washington Post column: “The voters repudiated the very worst aspects of post-Bush conservatism: its harsh tone toward those in need, its doctrinaire inflexibility on taxes, its inclination toward extreme pronouncements on social issues, and its hard anti-government rhetoric that ignored the pragmatic attitude of the electorate’s great middle about what the public sector can and can’t do.”

That voter response would suggest that we should begin moving forward, allowing America to open her arms to all of her children. Of course, that does not mean we will. Already, conservatives are trying to re-fight the election.

Some conservative business people have given walking papers to employees in retaliation for Obama’s win, while others say they will add surcharges to customers’ bills and will reduce hours for workers to avoid providing health care insurance.

The day after the election, Robert Murray, the chief executive of the Murray Energy Corp., a privately held mining company, gave 160 workers layoff notices, citing the re-election of what he called a coal hating president. John Metz, whose company owns and/or manages numerous Denny’s and Hurricane Grill & Wings restaurants, said he will add a 5 percent surcharge to customers’ bills, as well as reduce employ hours to below 17, to deal with the added costs of Obamacare. John Schnatter, the chief executive at Papa John’s Pizza, is willing to give away 2 million free pizzas to the tune of $24 million to $32 million a year, according to a recent Forbes article, but he is not willing to add $5 million to $8 million to his bottom line in order to pay for employees’ health care. He has threatened to cut workers to below 30 hours a week to avoid Obamacare requirements, and has said he would add 11 cents to 14 cents per pie. (Forbes calculated that Obamacare would add an extra 3.4 cents to 4.6 cents per pie at Papa John's.)

In addition, conservative Republicans already have begun the election conspiracy theories, from mysterious black people showing up like extraterrestrials at rural polling places in Maine to Obama using mind control on people so that he and the United Nations can create a communist dictatorship in America.

Of course, no post-election spin can be complete without the doubling down of old conservative standbys, including efforts by the Conservative Majority Fund to start an impeachment drive against the President because he is not a natural born citizen in its view. “Our only recourse now is to move forward with the full impeachment of President Obama,” the fund announced in a recent fundraising letter. “We suspect that Obama is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and that there may be grounds for impeachment as is laid out in the constitution. Further, he may not even be a U.S. citizen because nobody, I mean no one, has seen an actual physical copy of his birth certificate. Impeachment is our only option.”

We also have seen calls by conservatives to revolt against the federal government, including on-line secession petitions from 40 states. Romney has returned to his disparaging of the “47 percent” of takers in this country, saying in a conference call to his conservative donors that Obama won because he gave “gifts” to minorities and young women. (Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah later corrected Romney’s assertion that 47 percent of the population is moochers. Hatch says it is 51 percent.)

But even with all of that America is still the winner because while overt and subtle racism are up, according to an Associated Press poll released before the Nov. 6 presidential election, the numbers are not as high as they were a decade or two ago. And the racist dogma is being rejected by a majority of America, especially the young. Obama won with a broad based coalition that included blacks, Latinos, Asian-Americans, women, white workers, and the young.

Suffice it to say that the 2012 election did not put to rest all of the issues facing our nation. It did, however, give us a greater sense of what the majority of Americans want and how they want to proceed. By rejecting the calls for a return to the 1950s, the voters gave America a resounding victory.

America can, finally, be America again.

The Battle for America's Soul

It is a burgeoning protest, one spurred by anger that seems to keep growing. And like any action borne of anger, it has the potential to wreak havoc on society, to become a volatile mix of arrogance and self-righteousness. That is why we cannot dismiss nor ignore the frustrations emanating from the “Occupy Wall Street” encampment in Lower Manhattan or the other demonstrations sprouting up around this country. For those demonstrations are battles in the war over the heart and soul of this country, the possible beginning of an American Autumn.

Some time ago, I wrote about the growing disconnect that is occurring in this country, the manner in which our political leaders – and many of us – have lost sight of what America is and what America should be. Too often, the policy decisions coming out of Washington have divided this country: One seemingly for the rich, another seemingly for the rest of us. The result has been a palatable discontent with a world that views any shift from the conservative orthodoxy as treasonous.

That discontent was not borne with the Tea Party, though the Republicans and the Tea Party gave face to it during midterm elections in which the GOP seized the U.S. House of Representatives and several state legislatures across the country. Instead, it was borne from a crumbling economy in which the working- and middle-classes saw their modest wealth slip away, and the people who robbed America of its stability rewarded with bailouts, some of which were used to pay exorbitant bonuses.

Now, as we head into a new election season we have witnessed what anger can do to a nation, especially when that anger is accompanied by demagoguery and stridency. Washington – and some state legislatures – has been paralyzed, unable to do the people’s work, unwilling to help the millions devastated by the greed and recklessness that dominated the last decade. Jobs are needed in this country, yet Washington cannot pass a jobs bill. The infrastructure needs repairing, yet Washington wants to cut such spending.

“Occupy Wall Street” can – and should – be the pushback against the flag draped conservatism that tears at the heart of our nation and threatens to destroy its soul.

A cursory glance at “Occupy Wall Street” shows the disenchanted, the disillusioned, the disaffected, people Republicans have assailed as jealous of the wealthy, as soldiers to class warfare. But if we look beneath the surface we see a cross-section of society: students and teachers; parents and children; the employed and unemployed; the elderly and young; homeowners and renters; artists and business people; citizens and foreigners. All are of different races and political attitudes.

Just a few months ago, many may have been apathetic. They no longer are because the issues we face are not Democratic, Republican, black, white, Asian, or Hispanic. They are man-made ills that plague all of us. That is why this is a fight for the soul of America, a battle to determine if we will be a callous, vengeful, and barbarous nation, or if we will be a caring, forgiving, and civilized nation. Xenophobia and brutish ignorance have made us a suspicious people who no longer strive for what is the best in us.

Three years ago, we seemed to be reaching for all that is good. In 2008, many young people – some once apathetic toward the political system – voted for Barack Obama. Those young men and women became engaged in the life of our country after spending part of their lives decrying the corruptness of the political system, refusing to vote or even read about Washington for fear it might taint. A year ago, the Tea Party forced some of the most absurd amateurs into our lives and into the national arena.

We have come to understand what happens when we allow extremists to take our country from us. Now, we must decide – each in our own way – how we will regain control of our collective destiny, to reassert our belief that America is more than platitudes about exceptionalism. That is what some of the people are doing at “Occupy Wall Street,” seeking to force America to be America again, pushing her to open her arms and heart to her children.

That’s why we must support them, and why we must help them to understand that protesting Wall Street is not the end. It is only the beginning. Wall Street is not the sole problem that we face. Draconian immigration laws in such states as Alabama and Arizona are forcing immigrants to cower in fear of being detained, regardless of whether they are here legally or illegally. Farmers who once brought Mexican laborers in to harvest crops under the country's H-2A farm visa program are discovering that farm jobs being held for Americans are going unfilled because many of the unemployed find the work to back breaking.

The New York Times recently reported that John Harold, a 72-year-old farmer in Olathe, Colo., decided to hire fewer Mexican workers this year in an effort to save jobs for unemployed Americans in his community. "It didn't take me six hours to realize I'd made a heck of a mistake," Harold said, explaining that many of the local workers started the $10.50 an hour jobs at 6 a.m. and quit by noon.

Another farmer, 49-year-old Kerry Mattics, had the same experience. "It's not an easy job," Mattics said. "It's outside, so if it's wet, you're wet, and if it's hot, you're hot...They wanted that $10.50 an hour without doing very much. I know people with college degrees, working for the school system and only making 11 bucks."

There are even more without jobs, and they are occupying Wall Street to show their displeasure. One such person is Jon Reiner, a former marketing executive and father of two boys. Reiner says he has been laid off three times in five years. He also says he has sent out 2,000 resumes, according to MSNBC.

“You were a member of the middle class, you were at a point in your life where you thought you’d be at the zenith of your career or upward trajectory, and all of a sudden you find yourself marginalized,” the 49-year-old said. “The term that I’ve begun to use is unemployable.

“What this rally – this organization you know – represents is to try to give voice to the have nots, who are a huge part of this society, and who no longer have the means or the opportunity to contribute,” he added.

Indeed, the protests that began with a few on Wall Street has to be carried to the ballot box, where both major parties and independents should have to vie for votes through policies that help the majority of Americans, not policies that seek revenge or to divide. “Occupy Wall Street” is an early salvo in a long war, one that with discipline, patience, and honor can accomplish as much – if not more – as the Arab Spring.

The time is ripe for us to harvest an American Autumn.

Setting the Tone for a Presidential Narrative

After more than half a year of pugnacious Republicans bellowing about what they will not accept, it was refreshing to hear President Barack Obama go on the offensive in his speech before a joint session of Congress Thursday night. Now we have to see if he will maintain his assertiveness.

The President’s speech outlining the American Jobs Act contained the passion and no, nonsense tone that was missing from the White House and the Democrat Party. For too long, the GOP and its “tear down the government” minions were allowed to dictate the narrative coming out of Washington. In doing so, they created a false debt crisis that wasted precious time that could have and should have been spent on improving the American economy. And during that time, Obama and his party seemed content to allow the petulant children run amok through our nation’s Capitol.

But Thursday night the President stood firm, outlining a jobs package that should help to ease some of the pain cutting across our nation. Of course, the proposed jobs act will not solve all of our ills. Anyone who believes that it will is delusional. It can, however, be a driving force in restoring confidence in our national economy. Because of the dysfunction that is being passed off as political discourse, too many business leaders and consumers doubt our ability to throw off this economic malaise.

It does not matter that businesses are sitting on more than $1 trillion in cash; taxes for corporations are at an all-time low with some companies paying little or no taxes; interest rates are well below anything we might have expected; the stock market, though volatile at times, is strong; and profits are high at many companies. There remains a disbelief about how we govern ourselves, and whether we will work together to move this nation forward.

That is why it was important for the President to speak to the heart of America, and it is even more important for Obama and the adults in Washington to be steadfast in seeking solutions to our nation's woes.

“No single individual built America on their own,” Obama said. “We built it together. We have been, and always will be, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all; a nation with responsibilities to ourselves and with responsibilities to one another.”

While that declaration was a reminder of what it means to be an American, Obama's speech was an important call to action, an admonition that the problems we face are man-made, and, therefore, can and must be fixed by man.

The United States has been at its strongest when government, academia, labor, and business have worked together. The four did not have to always agree, nor did they have to be warm and fuzzy with each other. They just needed to respect what each brought to the table. When they did America emerged as a superpower, an exceptional example of not only what can be, but what should be. It is through that paradigm that America will again emerge strong.

If we rebuild the infrastructure we will create jobs that will provide people with disposable income, as well as upgrade the transportation system. If we invest in updating the electrical grid we not only create a better energy network, but we increase the potential for even more jobs. If we invest in research we can provide an environment that encourages new industry. If we revamp the business and personal tax codes, as well as set reasonable regulations on energy and the environment, we can give businesses the confidence that actions taken now will not be reversed after the fact. And if we increase the amount of money spent in the short-term, we can create the demand that leads to long-term development and job growth in the private sector.

“We all remember Abraham Lincoln as the leader who saved our Union, founder of the Republican Party,” the President told us Thursday night. “But in the middle of a civil war, he was also a leader who looked to the future – a Republican President who mobilized government to build the Transcontinental Railroad, launch the National Academy of Sciences, set up the first land grant colleges.”

Indeed, it is that kind of vision that we need now, not the myopic view of the world that permeates our national debates. We have allowed our eyes to become jaundiced, and in doing so we can no longer see what makes America great. It is not proclamations made by self-described patriots or damnations issued by political provocateurs. It is the willingness and the ability of Americans to come together to build, to fight for what is right, to put the nation above ourselves, to recognize that ideology, while a subtext in our story, is not the story.

“Ask yourselves – where would we be right now if the people who sat here before us decided not to build our highways, not to build our bridges, our dams, our airports?” Obama asked Congress. “What would this country be like if we had chosen not to spend money on public high schools, or research universities, or community colleges? Millions of returning heroes, including my grandfather, had the opportunity to go to school because of the G.I. Bill. Where would we be if they hadn’t had that chance?

“How many jobs would it have cost us if past Congresses decided not to support the basic research that led to the Internet and the computer chip?” he continued. “What kind of country would this be if this chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do? How many Americans would have suffered as a result?”

The answers to those questions may be too terrifying to ponder.

The Pandemic of Foot-in-Mouth Disease

Politicians have always been susceptible to foot-in-mouth disease, but we appear to have reached a pandemic since Barack Obama became President. Nearly every day, some Republican, or one of the party’s erstwhile supporters, comes down with the disease. Instead of seeking treatment for the affliction, each compounds it by claiming that the illness was misdiagnosed by others.

For example, Mark Halperin was infected on national television, making a scatological reference to the President. He later offered an unctuous apology. In Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the disease manifested itself when he proclaimed:

“Everybody goes to clinics, to hospitals, to doctors, and so on. Some people go to Planned Parenthood. But you don’t have to go to Planned Parenthood to get your cholesterol or your blood pressure checked. If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood, and that’s well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does.”

When told that only 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s work involves abortions, Kyl proclaimed that his statement was not meant to be taken as fact.

Halperin and Kyl are not the only ones. There have been countless other instances in which Republicans have either used racially charged language only to claim it wasn’t meant to be racial, or have made blatantly false statements only to claim the statements were not meant to be taken as facts. The most recent example of this is Rep. Doug Lamborn, a conservative Colorado Republican. Last Friday, Lamborn went on the radio and proclaimed that working with President Obama would be “like touching tar baby.”

“I don’t even want to have to be associated with him,” Lamborn said in an interview on the Caplis and Silverman radio show on KHOW 630 AM in Denver. “It’s like touching a tar baby, and you get it – you know, you’re stuck, and you’re part of the problem now, and you can’t get away. I don’t want that to happen to us, but if it does, or not, he’ll still get – properly so – the blame, because his policies, for four years, will have failed the American people.”

The “us” Lamborn is talking about are Republicans. The person who will be blamed for the problems is of course Obama.

Lamborn’s comment raised the ire of numerous people, including the heads of the local NAACP, the Urban League of the Pikes Peak Region, and the El Paso County Democratic Party. Each decried his comments as racist because the phrase "tar baby" has been used to denigrate black people.

“The world already views (El Paso County) as ultra conservative, ultra-right-wing, Tea-Party-loving, gay bashing, an epicenter of hate,” Rosemary Harris Lytle, president of the Colorado Springs chapter of the NAACP told The Gazette newspaper. “With two vitriolic words, our own Congressman again sealed our fate.”

Lamborn’s people denied his comments were racial in nature. Instead, they said the reference was made because working with Obama created a sticky situation, a quagmire. The dictionary does indeed define tar baby as “a situation, problem, or the like, that is almost impossible to solve or to break away from.” But if Lamborn only meant to suggests a sticky situation, then why use a term that could so easily be seen as racially derogatory? Why not just say quagmire? Why liken the President, instead of the situation, to tar baby as was the case when the fallout from the Iran-Contra affair was dubbed George H.W. Bush's tar baby?

The reason, I believe, is simple: He knew what he was saying (“and you get it”), and he knew that he could cite the folktale “Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby” for cover. Lamborn also may have made a Freudian slip, giving away more about how he and the Republican Party view the President.

Allow me to elaborate in a conspiratorial way: Brer Fox (the GOP) hates Brer Rabbit (Obama), so Brer Fox creates a tar baby (the debt ceiling crisis) in order to trap Brer Rabbit and destroy him. Why? The answer may be as simple as Brer Rabbit is to sassy, to uppity for Brer Fox. Brer Rabbit eventually was able to trick Brer Fox, who threw Brer Rabbit into the briar patch. Brer Rabbit, sullied by the tar baby (debt ceiling debate), was able to escape.

With the debt ceiling debate over for now we have irrefutable proof that the role of the GOP (Brer Fox) is to destroy Obama (Brer Rabbit) by any means necessary. Now Obama has to figure out how he will deal with the GOP from this day forward. No longer can he look to them to make compromises that are good for the country. He has to understand that from now on, he must seek the support of his party faithful and any moderates on the other side of the aisle.

While many Republicans, especially those buoyed by the Tea Party, see their roles as burning down the house that is the federal government, polls show that many supporters of the Tea Party (57 percent in some polls) seek compromise. They supported the Tea Party not because they wanted to destroy the government or Obama, but rather because they wanted a government that would work, that would no longer follow the status quo.

Instead, those people helped to create more dysfunction than ever. And now it is up to Obama to remind them of that mistake so it can be corrected in 2012.

America Eats More Than Its Young

It did not take long for the conservative apologists and Republicans to get on their soap boxes after the attempted murder of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords Saturday in Tucson. While many expressed outrage at the shootings of Giffords and 19 other people -- what else could they do -- they also unleashed a torrent of comments denying that their over-the-top rhetoric may have contributed to the attack.

Indeed, it may turn out that Jared L. Loughner, the suspect in the murders of six bystanders and the wounding of 14 others, acted alone, driven more by a distorted sense of reality stemming from mental illness than anything else. But to say that his deranged state is the sole cause is to deny the damage done by the vitriol that currently passes for political discourse, as well as the tendency of the right to label anyone who disagrees as a conspirator working for the downfall of America.

By now everyone has heard about how Jesse Kelly, the Republican who challenged Giffords in the Eighth Congressional District race, held a "targeting victory" fund-raiser in which he invited contributors to shoot an M-16 with him. That summer event, which has been reported in The New York Times and other media outlets, was simply a pre-cursor to the paranoid, anti-establishment, us-against-them rhetoric that followed.

“These people who think they are better than us, they look down on us every single day and tell us what kind of health care to buy,” Kelly told his supporters during a rally in October in which he attacked President Barack Obama's health care plan. “And if you dare to stand up to the government they call us a mob. We’re about to show them what a mob looks like.”

The problem is that, true to his word, Kelly and others like him have repeatedly shown us what a mob looks like. And the faces in those mobs are quite often the same. While one could reasonably argue that there is nothing wrong with directing a people's anger to benefit a political cause, those who choose to stoke that anger through lies, paramilitary metaphors and ridiculous conspiracy theories cannot abdicate responsibility for the aftermath.

Too often, those who engage in wrongheaded and hateful speech complain about society trying to stop them from telling the truth. They attribute criticism of their speech to political correctness. Being PC -- or even civil for that matter -- is not the issue here.

When one uses hostile and violent words in a community where anger runs high, then there will be dire consequences. Sarah Palin's placing a rifle scope over Giffords district and telling her Tea Party supporters to "reload" creates an atmosphere in which people are given the impression that violence is acceptable. The same is true of Sharron Angle's comment about "Second Amendment" remedies.

Add to that the number of ludicrous conspiracy theories -- the President is not an American, but is part of a global plot to take over the U.S., etc. -- and the possiblity that an unstable individual might seek violent retribution increases.

For many, the concerns over the current political rhetoric go beyond whether Loughner was influenced by one set of thoughts or individuals. It goes to the heart of what kind of nation we seek to be. Shall we be a nation that believes in the ideas of open and free debate, where issues are hashed out in public? Or will we prefer to stifle discussions through threats, intimidation, lies and violence?

More important, will we be a country where citizens demand more of their leaders, regardless of political stripe, or a people who seek out the angriest words in an effort to reinforce our darkest and most dangerous thoughts?

The ball rests most surely in the courts of Republican lawmakers who have spent the last two years doing all they could to regain legislative power regardless of the damage to the national psyche.

Time for Backbone and Vision

Are there any Democrats with backbone in this country, any willing to present a vision for America and then fight vigorously to realize it? In 2008 it seemed Barack Obama was such a Democrat, but since taking office he has appeared to have turned against his own vision as if it was a nightmare. Obama the presidential candidate painted a picture of an America where discourse would be common and people would seek to work for the better of society, refusing to give in to the pettiness of partisan politics and racial bigotry.

It hasn’t happened, and not simply because Republicans have fought as hard as hell to keep it from happening. It hasn’t occurred because Obama and his band of professional politicians have not had the gumption to make it happen. Yes, the GOP and its Tea Party minions have worked hard to distort the issues and distract the voters. They have taken attack politics and fear mongering to a new level. But too often the problems Democrats face have more to do with their ineptitude than with the opposition’s strengths. Democrats are too quick to step back from their convictions for fear of offending voters in the midterm elections. They are campaigning not to lose, rather than fighting to win.

For example, President Obama rightfully stood before a group of Muslims and non-Muslims in the White House and proclaimed that the people seeking to build an Islamic center in Lower Manhattan have the right to do so. He cited the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of religion. The next day, after being criticized for being out of touch with what most Americans feel, the President stepped back, saying that while he said Muslims had a right to worship, he did not necessarily say they had the right to build in Lower Manhattan. The President should have stuck by his earlier statement. More important, he should have been more emphatic in his support when the subject came up again.

Instead, his vacillation has led to such people as Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader and a Democrat facing a difficult re-election fight in Nevada, to attack the building of the Lower Manhattan mosque. “The First Amendment protects freedom of religion,” The New York Times quoted Jim Manley, a top adviser to Reid, as saying on Monday. “Senator Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built someplace else.”

Reid and other Democrats reacted because Republican House and Senate candidates have challenged them on what is a singularly local issue. What is built in Lower Manhattan is a New York City, not a state or Federal issue. If Republicans and Democrats want to debate whether mosque should be built in the United States then let’s bring in the battles in Tennessee and California, where Muslims are facing opposition though they are not trying to build near “hallowed” ground. The battle is not about hallowed ground. It is about stirring up anti-Islamic fervor.

“Ground zero is hallowed ground to Americans,” said Elliott Maynard, a Republican running for Congress in Virginia. “Do you think the Muslims would allow a Jewish temple or Christian church to be built in Mecca?”

Newt Gingrich was no better. “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington,” Gingrich said on Monday. “We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There’s no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center.”

The Democrats have accused the Republicans of exploiting the Sept. 11 terror attacks, telling voters that the GOP is more concerned about the symbolism of a mosque in Lower Manhattan that it is about the people injured at ground zero. Several weeks ago, many of the same Republicans who are standing up for the memory of those injured or killed in the Trade Center attacks opposed a new medical program that would have helped emergency workers and others who were exposed to hazardous materials at ground zero.

Yet, that Democratic message isn’t strong enough. The message that needs to be sent to voters during this off-season election cycle is that the Republicans, if they win the House or Senate, will seek to attack everything – from freedom of religion to who should elect U.S. Senators to who should receive U.S. citizenship. And that would create an even more frightening nightmare than anything from our outside enemies.