I've become increasingly dismayed and angry at John McCain's recent attacks on Barack Obama. I wanted to try to ignore them, because getting upset would be exactly what they want. But these attacks have either, a) been flat-out wrong or misleading, b) beyond the traditionally acceptable political criticism, c) surprising from a candidate who said he wants to run a clean campaign.

 Knowing that he can't win a debate on policy, McCain has resorted to a line of attack that tries to appeal to American's fears about Obama. He wants to cast Obama as the "other" who is not patriotic and does not want to see his country succeed. If Obama said this stuff about McCain, he would be assailed by the media.

First, McCain charges that because Obama opposed the troop surge, he was more concerned about winning a political campaign than winning a war. This just reeks of cynicism and right-wing fear-mongering. Nevermind the fact that McCain talks about the vague concept of "victory," as if one day we'll waltz away from Iraq dancing on the S.S. McCain. Nevermind that Obama, like many other patriotic Americans, including Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, believed that the surge would mean more money spent, more American casualties and more distractions from the central-front in the War on Terror, Afghanistan. (I, for one, still believe he was right). The most important fact is that Obama took the extraordinarily unpopular position, risking political ruin, by opposing the war in the first place. McCain went along with it like a cog in a machine. (despite what he'll try and tell us about opposing a "failed" strategy, he was advocating "stay the course" as late as 2005).

Next was the absurd charge that Obama didn't make time to visit wounded troops in Germany. Obama says that the Pentagon was concerned that such a visit would be viewed as too political, since this portion of his overseas trip was paid for with campaign money. McCain accused Obama of taking time to go the gym, while ignoring our troops. Of course, Obama had already spent time with troops in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan. Also, he REALLY supported the troops by supporting Jim Webb's GI Bill, which McCain opposed, and then tried to take credit for. McCain is doing the same thing that these viral emails are trying to do: use Obama's unfamiliarity (augmented by his skin color, name and background) to foment doubt in the minds of American voters about his patriotism. This is politics at its worst. These attacks are personal, not political, have nothing to do with policy, and are aimed at the appealing to the worst prejudices of the American people.

We would never question McCain's patriotism. Nor should we. We don't have to, because we can win the election on policy.

 About a year ago, I wrote a post listing my version of the top 10 annoying members of Congress. Well, it may have taken me awhile, but a boring day of work has inspired me to write the Senate addition. As always, comments and suggested additions are welcome.

10. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) I actually really love his politics. And really, he's a great Senator. Why is he on this list? Because he's the only avowed socialist in the United States Senate. This is a problem because according to the National Journal's rankings, he is not as "liberal" as Barack Obama. Sanders has set up Obama for a lot of cheap shot attacks from the right. I know it's not his fault, but its still annoying.  

9. James Inhofe (R-OK)  James Inhofe is perhaps the most known global warming skeptic in Congress. He spent his allotted time at a hearing with Al Gore to bring up isolated instances in which Gore maybe wasn't praticing good conservation. He claimed that global warming is a conspiracy by the Weather Channel to boost its ratings. Wow, I didn't realize that the Weather Channel was such a powerful lobby (even though I won't miss a captivating episode of "Weather PM"). Why can't he get with the program? Even Bush admits that Global Warming is a problem. The kicker? This guy used to be the chairman of the committee that deals with Global Warming until the Dems took over Congress. What did you say about elections not mattering?

8. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) This guy is John McCain's top surrogate. He's always going on Sunday talk shows and blasting Democrats with his snide self-righteous attitude. Part of what makes him so annoying is his voice, which I can't stand. Mostly though, it's about the content of what he says. Last year in an infamous MTP interview with Jim Webb, he kept repeating that "the troops just want to win" even as Webb reminded him that the troops have just as diverse political views as the American public as a whole.

7. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) Let's make this bipartisan! From what I hear, this guy doesn't do much besides walk around and offer people Macademian nuts. Now I know its only hearsay, but can't we find someone else in the great state of Hawaii who could be a more effective Senator?

6. John Cornyn (R-TX) Anyone who hasn't been acquainted with this lovely guy just needs to watch his ad (find it on YouTube) where he's dressed as a cowboy as a Texan deep voice in the background talks about "Big John" and all the great things that he's done. Besides the insane gravitas it takes to make an ad like this, he claims that he "supported our soldiers and rooted out crooks." The first part of that statement is not true, considering that he voted against the Webb GI Bill. The second part is laughable because they needed something to rhyme with "looks" even though Congress has absolutely no role in "rooting out crooks."

5. Larry Craig- (R-ID) The only reason he's not further up on the list is that his bathroom shenanigans have provided us with endless entertainment. But how does a guy who like him with a "wide stance" claim to be a crusader for moral values and supportive of a discriminatory constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. That would be like me supporting a constitutional ban on stupid CP blog postings.

4. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) This guy is the obstructionist in chief as the Republican leader of the Senate. The Republicans have already set a record for most bills filibustered and Congress still has another 5 months to go. I can understand filibustering once in awhile for bills that reach too far, but would that be the case for:

-A bill to creat a Cap-and Trade program for greenhouse polluters?

-A bill designed to prevent cuts in payments to medicare doctors?

I think he just likes to wield the little power he has. He is also really smug on Sunday talk shows. It's not the best thing to wake up to.

3. Jim DeMint (R-SC) There is a little known Senate rule that one Senator can put a hold on a piece of legislation. Though rarely used, there are two abusers of this rule in the current Senate. Jim DeMint is one of them. He blocked the bipartisan ethics bill for about 6 months before he finally relented. He also blocks all sorts of non-controversial bills, and then has the guts to go around talking about the "do-nothing Congress."

2. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) Everytime I see him on TV, I just want to throw something. I get it, he has drifted away from his party, but he just slings so much mud. Does he remember that Barack Obama campaigned for him in his primary against Ned Lamont? Not only is he a traitor who has become a right-wing talking points extraordinaire, but he does it while claiming to be an "Independent Democrat." Also, he always sounds like he has a stomach ache. And guess what Joe, none of us want to give in and lose to al qaeda!

1. Tom Coburn (R-OK). This guy takes the prize by a long shot. He has blocked so many non-controversial bipartisan bills, that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is putting a "Coburn Omnibus" bill together so that the entire Senate can vote on everything he has blocked. Why does he have to be such a thorn in the side of the entire United States Senate? Because he thinks its SOOOO cool to be fiscally conservative. Also, he was doing a crossword puzzle during the confirmation hearings of Samuel Alito. And he said that abortion doctors should be subject to the death penalty.

 Congratulations Tom, you take the cake!

I will be very angry if Congress feeds into the lies and deceptions of the Bush administration and Congressional conservatives on the subject of Domestic Oil Production. If you turn on CSPAN these days, a parade of angry, deceiving losers (otherwise known as Congressional conservatives) take to the floor to discuss oil prices, whether the bill up for debate is on energy, or honoring the late Tim Russert. They bring out their stupid graphs about how prices have gone up since the Democrats took control of Congress (didn't they ever learn the difference between causation and correlation?), and they rant about how the problem comes down to the laws of Supply and Demand. China and India are driving up demand, so all we have to do is create more supply! It's that simple!

They propose to open up offshore areas and the pristine Alaska Wildlife Refuge to drill for more oil. They are counting on Americans to have taken only the first day of Econ 101.

Let's get a few things straight. First, the Bush administration has overseen a meteoric rise in oil prices. Why should we follow the policies of the people who drove us into a ditch in the first place by not developing alternatives, and waiting 7 years to enact stricter CAFE standards. Second, oil companies already own millions of acres of leases, which have the vast majority of the U.S. owned-oil and natural gas reserves. They are not drilling there right now. Why should we give them additional permits? Third, if we were to start drilling for oil right now, we would not feel the effects of an increase in supply for 10 years, and even at that point the effect on the price will be a few cents. It is far more likely that even if we increase supply of oil, demand will continue to outpace supply and the price will continue to rise. Fourth, we are not just addicted to foreign oil, we are addicted to ALL oil. Oil is a finite resource that contributes to Global Warming, whether it's from Saudi Arabia or Alaska. The longer we depend on oil, the worse off our economy will be, and the worse off our environment will be.

So let's get real. I don't care if 70% of the country supports drilling. It is a stupid, short-sighted solution to a big problem. If we must get more oil now to lower gas prices, we could do it immediately by taking oil from our strategic reserve. But if we want REAL energy independence, we will stop looking to the past by paying oil companies to rip us off. We will look to the future and direct our money towards sustainable alternatives.

Congressional Conservatives have found the one issue that they think is popular with the American public and so they're running with it. That is why they are the most annoying bunch of deceptive losers ever to hold elected office. Let's make sure we all set the record straight.

   Even though people say that politicians always break promises, it is rare that these broken promises have been so explicitly laid out. President Bush, in his 2000 campaign talked about compassionate conservatism, which supposedly meant that he would be conservative, but would not eliminate government programs that help the neediest among us. Today, he did just that. Don't let the right wing megaphone fool you. The SCHIP bill, which passed with overwhelming support, isn't a path to universal health care. It isn't even enough to cover 2/3rds of the uninsured children in our country. It is also not government run health care, it is a public-private partnership. Three quarters of the SCHIP patients are covered by private insurers. So those insurance blowhards will still get their money anyway. For crying out loud, this bill is supported by the American Medical Association. The legislation is a modest step that expands a popular program to cover 8 million more children, for a fraction of the cost of the disastrous Iraq War. Today Mr. Bush silenced any of the lingering believers, who thought that Bush just might care about people.

  Why did Mr. Compassionate veto this bill? There are several answers. First, he wanted to reestablish his fiscal conservative credentials, after totally blowing it during his first six years in office. Second, he has misread the bill, mistakingly thinking that it has changed eligibility, when in actuality it is only adding funding. Most importantly, however, he vetoed the bill because he believes in a strict right wing ideology. This ideology states that any Government program is fundamentally wrong but it "gives" benefits to people who somehow don't deserve them. I will never understand people like him, who don't understand the real lessons of the bible, that if you don't help the least of these brothers of mine, you are not helping me. Or better yet, love thy freaking neighbor. The President and his conservative bretheren will never understand what most people, including our founding fathers, did. That is, even if you didn't do anything to deserve it, simply by being human, you are entitled to basic rights. I think this absolutely applies to children, who through no fault of their own, do not have health insurance.

 Finally, let's think about the kids who would be benefitting from the SCHIP bill. They are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, meaning their parents are working. Odds are, if you look at the parents' income level, they are working at blue collar jobs, putting in hours so that their family can live more comfortably. I hope everyone joins me in believing that the President's ideology is cold-hearted, at best.

  Yesterday, in a display of cynicism and extreme ideological rigidity, President Bush held a press conference to say that he will Veto a bill that expands the popular S-CHIP (State Children's Health Care Program) because it will lead us to the dreaded socialized medicine that all these crazy liberals are talking about. He added that the plan raises taxes (it doesn't, unless you smoke cigarrettes) and that it covers children whose parents make as much as $83,000 a year (good!). The program is set to expire on September 30th, so the need to reauthorize is urgent. The President says he supports a reauthorization, but does not want to expand the program. Under Bush's plan, there will still not be enough money to cover all of the children eligible of SCHIP coverage.

  Americans shouldn't be fooled by Bush's despicable press conference yesterday. This is a bipartisan bill that passed with a veto proof majority in the Senate. Conservative stalwarts such as Orrin Hatch and Charles Grassley adamantly support SCHIP expansion. Yet, President Bush is so tied to his market based ideology that he will be denying millions of innocent American children access to Health Insurance. This bill is not socialized medicine, though some of us wish it was. It will simply add funding to a succesful, popular program, that allows states to invest in the health of its children. Expanding coverage to lower/middle income Americans is exactly the right thing to do. Millions of middle class Americans cannot afford health insurance because they are squeezed by declining wages and high energy prices. All of this while hedge fund managers are swimming in dollar bills. It is only sensible to take this moderate action, to make sure that 13 million children are no longer punished by their parents' income level.

 Even worse, Bush tried to blame this on the Democrats in Congress, saying that he wants to extend the program, while his opponents are "playing politics." Give me a break. Expanding health insurance to children in a bipartisan, cost effective way is the furthest from playing politics that you can get. Playing politics would be if you threatened to veto a bill simply because you are so fundamentally against the idea of government health care that you can't think clearly. He should be ashamed of himself. As should any member of Congress who votes to uphold the President's veto.

    Today I took my second trip to the Cato Institute. After sitting through an hour of interns spewing out talking points on why the free market economy works, I thought that this visit much produce some sort of higher level of intellectual stimulation. The event today featured economist John R. Lott, who wrote a book entitled Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don't. If the theories he decries are "half-baked," than his theories are moldy at best. His book is intended to be a response to Freakonomics by Steven Levitt. Freakonomics was a book based on vague, statistic free theories that supposedly should make us think about the "hidden side of everything." Freedomomics, instead of being a rebuttal, took the same anti-analytical approach, but produced much more disturbing outcomes. 

    The thesis of the book is that in the long-run, the free market will produce the best possible outcomes for our economy, and incentive is essential. In essence, he stated that the higher things cost, the less likely people are to buy them. We must, then, maintain the incentives of the market. This is typical of free market economists: a vague theory not supported by hard evidence, which can be proven false by a college aged pseudo economist like myself. 

    He gave several examples of how government involvement can inhibit the benefits of the incentive-based market system. He talked about the current debate about Prescription drugs. He chastised Democrats for trying to let the Government negotiate for lower drug prices. In his view, the enormous profits of the drug industry are necessary. He believes that if making drugs weren't so profitable, there would not be incentive to make them, and as a result, people would die. This may be one of the shallowest arguments of all time. First of all, the drug companies profits do not come from drugs that produce the highest social benefit. Viagra may be profitable, but it is not going to save anyone's life. Secondly, even if the free market were to produce optimal societal results, many of these results would not come in the short-run. For example, it may not be profitable now to treat childhood obesity, but it will eventually save society some money. Therefore, while the market is determining the optimal outcome, many children will get fat in the mean time. 

    He really lost me when he started spewing out incredibly vague, unsubstantiated and toothless theories about crime. His first assertion, is that concealed carry laws lower crime because they make criminals worried about people having hand guns. Of course he fails to mention that criminals do not have the perfect information to make these rational decisions, and are certainly not rational economic actors. He then pathetically tries to assert that criminals will be less likely to commit crimes if we have tougher prison sentences and larger fines, because they know committing crimes will be more "costly." I don't even want to respond to that. Basically, if people like him spent more time investing in the real reasons crime exist (failing schools, lack of upward mobility, lack of institutional support), then people like John Lott wouldn't have to devote time to this garbage.

    There are two incredible shortcomings in Lott's arguments, as were pointed out by EPI's Jared Bernstein. First, as mentioned above, all of these theories assume that there is perfect information, which there almost never is. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, Lott does not understand the economics of externalities. The idea behind externalities is that firms will produce so it is most profitable for them. This level of production is rarely the optimal level of production for society. Bernstein listed a couple of examples. The first was education. It would be very profitable for all schools to be private, but then those on the lower end of the spectrum, due to the rampant inequality of opportunity in our country, would not be able to afford them. Therefore, the Government must step in and create strong public schools so that all children have the chance to share in the American dream. The second example is the Environment. Protecting the planet is not profitable for most corporations, which is why they still produce excesses of fossil fuels and gas guzzling cars. While the market may correct this problem in the long run, global warming will have already taken its toll.

    I am probably missing many other ridiculous things this guy said, but the thrust of my argument is that these smug economists use vague theories to show that a system which benefits them directly, is also somehow beneficial to society as a whole. This is, unfortunately, just not the case. He implies causations from loose correlations, and he does not take into account institutional structures that prevent a truly "free" economy from existing. Most absent from the book is data to show what is actually happening, which is that our so called "free" economy produces winners and losers, and that many Americans are not able to reap the rewards of their hard work.

    Karl Rove is resigning. What a day for the American people. The man most responsible for the deep divisions in our country which have caused political stalemate for the past 7 years is gone at the end of the month. It is my hope that he will be remembered for his morally bankrupt political strategies, and the damage he did to our political system.

    Rove's political strategy can be described as "divide and conquer." He would find weakness in an opponent's strength (such as Kerry's war service), and somehow gain political mileage out of it. He also is known for using issues that should have been non-partisan, like the  War on Terror, into winning issues for the Republican Party. After 9/11, his strategy was to advocate as extreme policies as possible. This would force the Democrats to oppose legislation such as the Patriot Act, and the creation of the Homeland Security Department, and Rove could then turn around and label the Democrats as "soft on defense." He also played on prejudice by advocating a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage to turn out evangelical Christian voters.

    The goal of politicians should be to bring out the greatness of the American people. Rove did the exact opposite, by playing on our fear and prejudice for political gain. I hope he can do what former Republican consultant Lee Atwater did, admit his sins and seek forgiveness from the American public.

    See you in hell, turd blossom. 

      As you can guess, I'm no fan of Newt Gingrich. I think he is an ethically challenged, overly partisan hack whose basic policies center around the idea of "blame the victim." I found myself surprised, then, to be in complete agreement with him the other day on the current state of Presidential campaigns.  He called the modern campaign "insane" and further stated: "What's the job of the candidate in this world? The job of the candidate is to raise the money to hire the consultants to do the focus groups to figure out the 30-second answers to be memorized by the candidate. This is stunningly dangerous."

    The debates, besides the one at the AFL-CIO the other day (which I actually enjoyed) , are  not good for the American people. Each candidate gets to give an answer that consists of a soundbyte not related to policy, and is then quieted by an aggressive Anderson Cooper. In the post-game spin room, which Triumph the Insult Comic Dog called "poop valhalla," campaign spokesmen all claim that their candidate "won" while the mainstream media discusses who "looked most confident up there" and who was the "best dressed."

    Meanwhile, candidates start campaigning 2 years before the election, meaning many of them evade their duties in Congress and spend their time seeking large donations from people for whom they will grant favors if they win the White House.

    Newt is right. This is not healthy. His prescription is to eliminate campaign finance laws, so that candidates can get larger corporate donations and wouldn't have to worry as much about fundraising. I think we should do the exact opposite, for starters. Here are ways we can improve the integrity of Presidential campaigns:

-Public Financing: To end the problems of corporate influence, and the absurd notion of $1=one vote, we should outlaw campaign donations, and provide public financing. Now, so called "free speech" advocates will claim that this violates peoples first amendment rights, because, of course, money=speech (in case you didn't know, rich people have more "speech" than the rest of us). Assuming that candidates are most accountable to their donors, don't we want them to be accountable to the taxpayers and not the hedge fund managers?

-Debates of substance: The debates should be longer, and should have fewer candidates. No, we shouldn't exclude the Ron Paul's or the Mike Gravel's, but we should divide the candidates randomly so that debates can be with four candidates instead of eight. This way, candidates will have more time to debate policy, and won't be forced to reduce everything to a quick soundbite.

-Regional Primaries: There should be four regional groups which should alternate having the first primary every election cycle. This way, small homogenous states like Iowa and New Hampshire won't have disproportional influence in who our nominees are. 

-Whip the media into shape: We need to get the mainstream media to not constantly focus on the "horse race," the everyday ups and downs of political candidates. The media has a responsibility to focus on the policy differences of the candidates, and not inconsequential superficialities. Therefore, after the debate, Chris Matthews needs to be put in a dark, sound proof room, away from any cameras.

-Get rid of campaign spokesman: God, these people are so annoying. You can pretty much predict what they're gonna say: "While candidate X is working on behalf of the American people, candidate Y is playing partisan politics." Really? What a shocker! I don't understand the point of these people. They are doing a disservice to America by constantly spinning the twists and turns of the campaign to their candidates' favor. I say these people should end up in the room with Chris Matthews. They can talk about why their candidate won the debate, and luckily, no one will be able to hear them.

    Last Friday, some of us CAP interns took a break from our grueling work to attend a meet-and-greet with interns from the CATO institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Both of these organizations are libertarian, although CEI is a bit more on the conservative side on issues such as Global Warming and Trade. My first impression was not good. For an organization like CATO, which advocates no government involvement in the market so that we can all accumulate as much wealth as possible, I was very disappointed that the best they could give us was Domino's Pizza. The interns, though, were very welcoming and willing to talk to us, which was greatly appreciated. After mingling for awhile, we went into a conference room to discuss the issues of the day. We started with Iraq, where there was pretty widespread agreement that the war was disastrous and that we need to pull out as quickly and safely as possible. I was heartened that these people on a different end of the political spectrum than my own shared my opinions on this disastrous war. 

     Soon, however, the agreement came to a screeching halt when discussing issues of economics, poverty and welfare. Many CAP interns (myself included) were arguing that there is an inequality of opportunity in our society, and therefore, a redistribution of wealth and resources is necessary for the common good. I also argued that it was workers who were generating the economic growth. Productivity has risen in the last 25 years, while real wages have fallen.

    Our ideas were met with scorn by these laissez-faire activists. All of them argued that the free market would actually be better for the poor, because rich people would accumulate more wealth, and therefore would create more jobs. They were perplexed that we could even be questioning these sacred ideas. I won't dignify their arguments by presenting them here, except to say that one kid seriously defended the use of sweat shop labor. Without it, he said, "workers would have NO options." They also used common red herrings about how welfare payments create a "culture of laziness" and that we are rewarding " failure."

    The main point here, is that Supply Side, You're On Your Own Economics is a fun theory that can be useful when you want to find an excuse to keep all of your money. But any analytical mind would look at what actually happens in America, and other more free market countries, and see that these policies are contributing to vast inequities that threaten our country's great goal of opportunity for all. Businesses, in a time of less regulation, actually reinvest their earnings in other businesses or their own stock. These patterns are clear from any data since Supply Side Economics took hold in the 1980's. Additionally, poverty has increased and real wages have decreased. We need to fundamentally change the structures and limitations of our country that give some people unlimited opportunity, while others, to no fault of their own, have to struggle simply to provide food for their families. This is fundamentally wrong, and no cute little theory about "trickle down" economics can change the underlying problem.  

     Even though it was fun and interesting to engage in a dialogue with these peoples, all of us CAP interns left pretty angry, wondering how people could possibly have such a narrow view of the world.

    Congressional conservatives (definetely among the most babyish, annoying bunch you could find) and the President are relying on American's ignorance to gain a political advantage. These shameful folks have realized that they cannot win on the substance of issues, so they have to result in red herrings that fool the American people by either lying to them outright, or deceptively misleading them. 

    Two examples in the last week prove just how low Conservatives will go. National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Cole (R-OK), talked about how he plans to highlight the Democrats' tax increases during the fall recess. The Washington Post Reported the other day:

"To Republicans eyeing the upcoming election season, the details of the tax increase was not at issue. A tax increase is a tax increase. "We can just say they're raising taxes because people have such a low opinion of the Democratic Congress that they are certainly willing to believe that they are raising their taxes," Cole said. "

Of course, just saying that the Congress is raising taxes apparently makes it so, despite the fact that under the current budget resolution, not one tax is raised. (The conservatives claim that since Bush's tax cuts are set to expire in three years, that the Democrats' budget represents the largest tax increase in American history). Other proposed increases in other bills include those on equity fund managers (invariably multi-millionaires), smokers and oil companies.

The second example occurred yesterday at the White House when President Bush derided the Speaker of the House for saying that the 22 billion difference between the President's budget and the Congressional budget is "insignificant." Bush said, "Only a lifetime Washington politician would believe $22 billion is insignificant." What a great applause line. Except for those of us who care about the truth, the difference represents .7% of the $3 trillion budget. The administration and congressional conservatives are hoping that Americans are ignorant enough that they will take these baseless assertions and adopt them as the truth. 

     This, of course, is not surprising for a party that:

    -Called a bill making it easier for unions to organize, " taking away a worker's right to secret ballot.

    -Called a minimum wage increase , " a rebuke of small business"

    -Called a bill to limit the tours of duty for our soldiers "undermining the work of our generals in the field"

     Frank Luntz must be so proud.

 Yesterday, it was reported that 73 Americans died in combat operations in Iraq during July. The right-wing hailed this news, because it was the lowest death count in 8 months. At what point, as Americans, did any of us become satisfied at a death count in the 70's?

    The truth is, the right wing looks for any excuse to tout "progress" in the surge, so that they can justify continued support. Just the other day, two closet neo-cons from the Brookings Institution wrote an op-ed in the NY Times about how they visited Iraq and determined that the "surge" is working. Their evidence seemed to be the high morale of the troops, the decrease in casualties, and the situation on the ground in Anbar province. Again, the right wing was eager to report how these "war critics" were reporting progress. 

First of all, these people are not the "war critics" they claim to be. Both of them were proponents both of the war itself and the surge.  Second of all, these so called analysts don't understand the fundamental truth in Iraq: There will never be a point where we will have "won." I don't care that we have this messiah General Petraeus (who actually is a political appointee with a pretty clear agenda). The hatred among rival factions in Iraq, and against perceived US aggression runs so deep that whatever the US does, short of obliterating the entire region, will not cause the "victory" that right wingers constantly talk about. 

Today, we find out that not only is the Iraqi parliament taking the month off, but the Sunni minority is leaving the government in protest of Prime Minister Maliki. If that were not enough, this morning gave us a stark reminder of how perilous Iraq actually is. 67 People, and 3 American GIS were killed by a truck bomb in Baghdad, the very place where the surge is supposed to be succeeding. 

It boggles my mind that people who have been so wrong at every point in this disastrous conflict are still seen as credible. The war is a disaster. The surge has not only failed to quell the violence, but has produced no political progress. Hopefully, we'll get to a point where we don't have to hear rightists celebrating a death count of 73, and the masters of war will once again realize that even Jesus could never forgive what they do.

In response to a lot of questions I've been getting on exactly what a "Conference Report" or " Motion to recommit with instructions" is, I've decided that I should use my pathetic mastery of CSPAN lingo to educate the masses. Here is a list of parliamentary procedures in the United States Congress, complete with my real definition.

Senate

Filibuster: A chance for Southern conservatives to delay a Civil Rights Bill, or neo-cons to stop an anti-war measure from passing. Although, when you're in the minority, it can be defined as the "Thank ****ing God" rule. Unlike what you see in some movies, and what they tell you in history classes, filibusters don't consist of some old guy reading a phone book for 24 hours anymore. Now, someone will file a "cloture" (see below) motion to cut off debate, which needs 60 votes to pass. Essentially, this means that any controversial legislation in the Senate needs 60 votes, which makes things impossible to enact.

Cloture: The 60 vote threshold needed to end debate. That is why, even though a party may be in the "majority," it has very little power unless it can gather 60 votes. This rule is very nice though when you're in the minority, so we can stop things like the Flag Burning Amendment. 

Motion to proceed to the motion to invoke cloture: Yeah, that really is the name for things people could be voting on.

Tabling: To table a bill or an amendment means to kill it by majority vote. So when Jim DeMint proposes that we take every dollar out of the Federal Government, we can say "shut up."

Motion to Instruct the Sargent-at-arms: This is one of my favorites. A Majority leader can invoke this rare procedure by majority vote, which would require the sargent-at-arms to physically bring people to the chamber. And you think CSPAN is NOT entertaining? 

President Pro Tempore: The Vice President of the United States is constitutionally supposed to preside over the Senate, but he is too busy planning the destruction of the world. Therefore, the duty is given to the President Pro Tempore. This is usually the senior Senator from the majority party, (currently Robert Byrd of West Virginia). However, this guy is usually too frail or lazy to perform the duty himself, so he hands it off to Freshman Senators as a "hazing" ritual. Therefore, freshman in the majority party have to sit and preside over the debate (really they're probably doing crossword puzzles).

Roll Call Vote: Senators, contrary to conventional wisdom, don't all come to the floor for the vote immediately. Usually, the clerk will read all of their names to an empty chamber, and then the Senators will lazily meander to the floor when they are done with their donut. They go up to the desk and announce their vote, before immediately going back to talk with lobbyists about that special project in their state. Therefore, a process that should take a few minutes, takes a freaking half hour.  

House of Representatives

"My good friend, the gentleman from Missouri": That ***hole across the aisle.  

Motion to Recommit with Instructions: Usually, the House Minority can't do anything, because the rule for debating a bill is agreed to by majority vote. They are entitled to a motion to recommit, which is basically a way to add something to the bill that will either alter its meaning completely, or kill it. For example, on a bill to give Voting Rights to DC, Conservatives offered a motion to recommit that would remove DC's handgun bill. Usually these things don't pass, except when some moderates feel like they need to vote for it to save face in their district. 

Speaker of the House: The Speaker of the House usually doesn't preside over the House during normal debates. She's probably too busy eating Ghiradelli Chocolates. Therefore, other House members from the Majority party get the priviledge of shutting people up, and calling on them to speak.

House and Senate:

Conference Committee: Usually, the House and the Senate pass different versions of the same bill. Probably the House's version is more extreme (as the founders intended) and the Senate has served as a cooling saucer. Thus, they must reconcile a bill in "Conference." These conferences consist of members of both parties in proportion to their membership in each chamber. Once they hammer out a compromise, both chambers vote on the final bill, called the "Conference Report." Of course, none of this will happen if one Senator prevents it. (I'm looking at you again, Jim DeMint)

Parliamentary Inquiry: A way to guise a political statement in the form of asking a question about procedure.

Point of Order: Making a point that the rules of the chamber are being broken. The presiding officer will decide if the point is valid (obviously they side with their own party, the majority). The chamber than votes on the ruling of the chair. The majority wins the vote, and members contemplate why they have wasted valuable time. 

I hope this is helpful to those of you who are interested in politics, or are at least interested in a "CSPAN Drinking Game" 

10. Tom Price (R-Georgia) This guy is always on the floor attacking other members and is constantly talking about "fiscal responsibility." I've never heard him present any positive ideas of his own. He is one of the chief conservative attack dogs. I think he must be a part of the "B Team" because he's never on the floor during really important debates.

9. Jeff Flake (R-AZ)-This guy holds up the appropriations process by offering tons of amendments designed to strip government programs. The bill could be something like "$1 for sad children" and this guy would oppose it.

8. Adam Putnam (R-FL) The chairman of the Republican Conference has a certain smug demeanor that makes me quite peeved. No wonder Rep. Marion Barry of Arkansas referred to him as a "Howdy-Doody Looking Nimrod." He also admitted to fabricating some Democratic "scandals" because, as he said, "we haven't gotten a break from the media since the Mark Foley scandal."

7. Tim Mahoney (D-FL) This is the guy who was elected to Mark Foley's seat in Florida and complained that he "wasn't enjoying his job" and that it is "too difficult." What an insult to all of the people who dream of being elected to Congress and never get to serve.

6. "Dr." Phil Gingrey (R-GA) This guy was a lot funnier when he had a goofy mustache, but he is most noted for his "diagnosis" of Terri Schiavo, which was completely proved false by this weird thing called "medical science." Along with Bill Frist, this guy is one of the worst doctor's in America.  

5. David Dreier (R-CA) This guy is the ranking member of the Rules Committee and complains that the new Majority passes rules that don't protect the "minority's rights." I think he doesn't realize that most Americans don't really care about House procedure. He gives passionate speeches on the floor to "oppose this rule." Give me a break. Under his rule, the minority was NEVER permitted to offer amendments.

4. Steve King (R-IA) This guy is another one of the chief conservative attack dogs. He was the one who built a miniature model of a border fence and wall during the immigration debate. He also is a frequent user of the "Democrat" Party epithet. 

3. Stephen Pearce (R-NM) On a bill to take money away from oil companies and invest in alternative sources of energy this guy says, " This is just another bill from the San Francisco liberal wing of the House." When did it become acceptable to openly attack an American city? That makes me so angry. And the bill's sponsor? From West Virginia.

2. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) This guy is a self-admitting agitator. I get the feeling this guy has no concern about policy and just loves to go to the floor to create a ruckus. He is always bringing up vague technicalities in bills and is one of the people who is always drumming up support for a fake scandal (such as the Pelosi "plane" incident). One of the most memorable incidents with this loser was when he tried a series of parliamentary maneuvers to try to prove that American Samoa had been exempt from the Minimum Wage bill because Del Monte Foods (whose factories are in American Samoa) are headquartered in Pelosi's district. He got quite a parliamentary smackdown from the presiding officer, the always entertaining Barney Frank. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=RWxY-5FS2Bc)

1. John Boehner (R-OH) Does it get more irritating than the fool?  You have to have a lot of chutzpah to go to the house floor and cry about how "3000 people have died on 9/11 and we need to stay on offense against the terrorists," (Wow, is that just completely misleading), while then call members of your own party "wimps" for questioning the President's policy. Not to mention, it seems like everything the Congress has voted on  "emboldens" the terrorists.   

    During the 2004 primary election, the Conservative Club for Growth wrote about then-front runner Howard Dean, "Howard Dean should take his latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving,  Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont, where it belongs." While this quote is quite funny (it's given me some good laughs), it is evidence of a sharp divide in the left-wing community between people who are "of the left" and people who are "to the left."

    The Club for Growth is describing the "of the left" people, and it is understandable that they associate liberalism with these characteristics. After all, "of the left" people have become the face of progressives. They hail from big cities and spend their time in SoHo in New York or Valencia Street in San Francisco. Some are Hollywood actors, but more frequently they are upper middle class to wealthy people, who identify more with left-wing lifestyles than left-wing ideas. These are the people who think politics consists of cracking jokes about when John Ashcroft covered the breast of the statue at the Justice Department. These are the people that laugh hysterically to any "Bush/Dick" double entendres. The "of the left" crowd knows very little about what actually goes on in the political world, except for on sexy issues like abortion, gay rights and global warming (not to diminish the importance of these issues).  They generally spend their time in capoiera classes, slam poetry events or trendy bars. The "of the left" crowd never really concerns itself with issues such as war, the military industrial complex, economic inequality, or anything else that has marginal importance in most American's lives.

    It's not that these people are bad (although they can be really annoying and self-righteous). In fact, they do a lot of good. Hollywood actors and moveon.org (big "of the left" institutions) have raised awareness on a lot of issues and have won important victories for progressive causes. And let me be perfectly clear, they are still FAR better than any right-wingers, bar none. But ultimately, they do damage to people like me , who are "to the left." (Disclaimer: I have many "of the left" qualities, I admit. I'm from a city and have spent time in coffee shops and enjoy Chai Tea).  The elitist attitude of a lot of these people is that their lifestyles of looseness and faux rebellion are far superior than "middle Americans." Because the "of the left" crowd has such a megaphone through its Hollywood prominence and big city prowess, many Americans associate liberalism with these folks. The perception begins to take hold that "liberalism" is about coffee houses and alternative lifestyles and not about freedom, justice, diversity, equality and caring for the least among us. 

    The "to the left" crowd, which is much more of a silent constituency, is actually the majority of progressives (as hard as it is for some conservatives to believe). These are the people that helped the Democrats win Senate seats in Montana, Missouri and Virginia. They are concerned about soliders dying for a disaster of a war. They are appalled that our economy is so inequitable. These are also politicians like Ann Richards, Jim Webb, Bob Casey and Sherrod Brown. (If you don't know who these people are, you are "of the left") These politicians may not listen to Indie music and they may not think gay marriage is the most important issue of our lifetime, but they champion things that are really important for the everyday lives of Americans, like Universal Health Care, ending the War in Iraq and expanding the equality of opportunity.

      The real harm of the "of the left" crowd is that they turn off people who otherwise would have progressive views from voting for left-wing candidates. Middle Americans are angered that the "of the left" people look down upon them and scoff at their values of sacrifice, community and family. Ultimately, aren't these good values? Sure, some of these values have been hijacked by Right-Wingers to mean things that they are not. But, they are values that I respect more than "getting to know myself in a foreign country." (an ultimate "of the left" obsession). Even though some Americans may hold progressive views, they become MORE angry at the perceived attitude of the "left-wing elite," that they end up voting Conservative. That is why self-identified "liberals" have declined in numbers in the past 25 years.

    All of us in the left-wing community (myself included) should start paying attention to the way we are perceived. There is nothing wrong with being "of the left," but we should also rethink what our core values are. In my view, being liberal has nothing to do with vague lifestyle and cultural qualities, it is a philosophy of ideas that make people's lives better.  

As the 2008 Election season heats up, many progressive candidates have been running on a populist message, that too much wealth and power is concentrated in the very few. In response, some smug elitist columnists from the New York Times (I'll give you a hint, it rhymes with Pay-vid Crooks) and others have tried to trick us into believing that such inequality does not exist. The New York Times article cites modest increases in real wages, and the fact that the income of the lower brackets has increased since Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were implemented. Sometimes, smug economists/political theorists will try and isolate various statistics to make a point that contradicts the truth. The truth can be found through an analysis of what is really happening.

Since 1981, when supply side economics permeated into America's bloodstream, real wages have declined, while productivity has increased. According to an August 2006 article in the New York Times, (not written by the aforementioned author), wages make up the lowest share of GDP since statistics have been measured, while profits make up the highest percent of GDP than at any point in our history.  What does this mean? The money is being made through the great American engine of innovation, but only the very few are reaping the rewards.

Of course, this is more than you need to know. Do you think that the 46 million people who can't afford health insurance, or the 13 million children living in poverty want to read articles telling them that inequality isn't THAT bad? I don't think so. According to the Children's Defense Fund, a vast majority of these children come from working parents, whose wages have remained stagnant. Even with today's raising of the national minimum wage, most low wage workers still live near or below the poverty line. Is it right that people should be suffering, is it right that people should be hungry, is it right that people should be impoverished, when hedge fund and equity owners are reaping record profits? Of course not. No statistician or Westchester County home-owning economist should be able to convince you otherwise.

We are the richest country in the world, our GDP will tell you that. So, the money is there. Where is it going? Rich people. One third of the 2001 tax cut, in which billions of dollars were given back to the wealthiest earners, could have funded universal health care for every child, 100,000 new teachers, and a fully funded head start program. The money is there, we are just not using it correctly.

Finally, I just want to make sure everyone is aware of some of the BS that comes out of these articles. Most of these writers, who have no background in Economics, often say that low wage workers have been gaining income just like the top earners! Wonderful, right? No. They never pay attention to relative wealth. As the rich get exponentially richer, the poor's relative wealth decreases, even if their wages increase. Also, make sure when they tell you that wages are rising, you know that they're usually talking about nominal wages and are not taking into account inflation.