Category Archives: Politics

Bush League Economy

Posted on by

In baseball, bush league refers to the lowest level – a metaphor that perfectly fits the economic performance of the George W. Bush administration.  It’s even more appropriate given that Bush made millions by gaming the City of Arlington and its citizens as “Managing Partner” of the Texas Rangers baseball team.

In short, the people of Arlington got screwed.  Not entirely unlike what Bush did to the people of the United States as our 43rd President.

This is no longer just opinion.  It’s fact.

According to a recent report by the Census Bureau, the median household income in the U.S. declined 4.2 percent during Bush’s two terms.  At the same time, the number of Americans living in poverty increased 1.9 percent to 39.8 million (the most since 1960).  More disturbing is the number of children now living in poverty:  When Bush entered office 11.6 million children were living in poverty.  When Bush left office, that number had swollen to nearly 14.1 million.  That’s an astonishing increase of more than 21 percent!  Under Bush, job growth was a dismal .28 percent – the worst performance since World War II.  The number of Americans employed in manufacturing dropped beneath 10 percent for the first time in history.  And the number of Americans without health insurance increased to 15.4 percent.

On every major measurement, the economic condition of American people declined during the Bush administration!  The housing industry crashed, the financial industry collapsed under the weight of its own risky gambles, stock markets crashed and two out of the Big Three U.S. auto makers faced bankruptcy.   About the only people who didn’t suffer under Bush’s watch were oil executives, military contractors, hedge fund managers and the extremely wealthy.

Predictably, the Republicans are now trying to reassign the economic blame to President Obama.  They accuse him of increasing the size of government, increasing the size of the federal debt, and taking over private businesses.  Let’s look at the facts:

The government, the deficit and the national debt all grew under President Bush.  The Department of Homeland Security represented a huge growth in government.  But the growth of government under Bush wasn’t confined to just the one department.  (In the first 3 months of 2008 alone, the federal government added 13,800 jobs under Bush.)  The deficit and debt under Bush increased in large part as the result of Bush’s misadventures in Iraq.  The real cost of that war is estimated at anywhere from $2-3 trillion, and some estimate that the cost of the Afghan war will overtake the Iraq war in 2010. 

The bailout of financial institutions is estimated at $3 trillion.  Approximately one-half of that was approved by the Bush administration.  And none of the money would have been necessary if not for the Republican’s aversion to regulation of financial institutions.

Finally, you can’t blame President Obama for the takeover of the U.S. auto industry.  Indeed, we all should thank him for it.  Had the Bush administration not allowed wild speculation of commodities, oil would not have spiked as they did in 2008.  Had that artificial spike not been followed by the collapse of our financial institutions, the auto industry would never have experience such severe problems.  And had the Obama administration not stepped in to help, the economy may well have fallen into another depression.

“Teabaggers”, “Birthers” and other racists.

Posted on by

Demonstrators at this past weekend’s rally at the U.S. Capitol carried a powerful message. They toted signs with photos of President Obama wearing a Hitleresque moustache. There were signs that called Obama a socialist, a Marxist and even a Nazi. There were signs calling him a “Muslim Kenyan” and an “African Lyin’.” There were signs stating “Bury Obamacare with Kennedy” and “We came unarmed (this time).” The only things they were lacking were torches and pitchforks.

These messages were not just tasteless and threatening. They were revealing. They exposed those who carried them as a rabble of misinformed racists who are angry and aren’t going to take it anymore. But they can’t even say what “it” is. All they seem to know is that President Obama and Nancy Pelosi are the problem.

Could it be that these people simply can’t accept an African-American and a woman as our nation’s leaders?

Of course, Republicans dismiss any such claims. They’re fond of pointing to the demonstrations against President Bush. However, there’s a significant difference. During the Bush administration, political opponents attacked his policies. During the Obama administration, the opponents seem to want to attack Obama. And not just with words. Why else would the demonstrators feel it necessary to threaten violence? Why else would they feel the need to bring guns to demonstrations?

If it were economic policy that concerned these people, they would be protesting against Bush for overseeing the first real decline in median household income in recent history. If the issue was spending, these people would have brought out the torches and pitchforks during the Reagan years or as the result of the $2 trillion war in Iraq. If it were the housing crisis and resulting financial meltdown that concerned them, they would be looking to lynch Bush, Greenspan and Henry Paulson. And if rationed health care was the problem, they would be surrounding the headquarters of United Health Group, Cigna and Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

No, these people are not angry about policy. They believe their country is being taken away by a black man and a powerful woman. They’ve been fuming for many years as they’ve seen African, Asian and Latino immigrants arrive in large numbers. They’ve been told that their “values” and religions are under attack. They’ve been told that President Obama hates white people. They’re easily manipulated by Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and organizations such as Fox News Network and Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks. They’re encouraged by elected officials like Dick Cheney, Sen. DeMint, Rep. Boehner and Rep. Cantor. Worse yet, they’re given publicity and credibility by a media too lazy or afraid to expose them for what they really are.

Rewarding unreasonable behavior.

Posted on by

On the anniversary of 9/11, Republican spokesperson and renowned liar, Rush Limbaugh, chastised President Obama for trying to turn 9/11 into a day of public service.  Wow!  How dare the President want to commemorate the attacks on U.S. soil with something positive!  How dare the President try to encourage Americans to serve their nation! 

Certainly, the past President never encouraged public service and sacrifice.  In the wake of 9/11, Bush asked us to go shopping.  And while our young people were serving and dying in Afghanistan and Iraq, he pushed for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.  (I guess he believed that only the middle class and poor should sacrifice for their country.)  Bush refused to allow press coverage and photographs of the true cost of war.  Indeed, Republicans treated war much as the Wizard of Oz would.  “Pay no attention to what’s behind that curtain.”

But, in reality, Republican criticism has nothing to do with President Obama’s statements and actions.  He’ll be criticized by Republican pundits no matter what he says or does.   That’s not surprising.  After all, we’re talking about the same people who accused then-First Lady Hillary Clinton with murder relating to the so-called Travel-gate.  They’re the people who spent $60 million of taxpayers’ money to investigate Clinton’s investment loss in Whitewater.  They’re the same people who called Democrats “whack jobs” and “conspiracy nuts” for crying foul over the 2000 Florida election.   (Never mind the findings of an independent group of journalists who stated, “It’s clear that a significant majority of Floridians intended to vote for Al Gore.”)  And these are the same people who attacked the patriotism of a Vietnam War hero while supporting a candidate who got his powerful daddy to help him avoid the draft by getting him into the Air National Guard. 

Republicans are good at attacking.  In fact, they’re great at it.  Many of today’s Republican strategists learned at the knee of the masters; Tricky Dick Nixon and Spiro Agnew.  Republican attacks and tricks should not come as a surprise to anyone – least of all Democrats.

What is surprising is that Democrats continue to try to reason with them.  And, by doing so, they continue to encourage their bad behavior.  It’s astounding that Representative Joe Wilson can bellow “You lie” to President Obama in an address to a joint session of Congress.  It’s even more astounding that Democratic Senators reword the health care reform bill because of Wilson’s outburst.  (Despite the fact that the bill already clearly stated that health care coverage will be denied to illegal aliens, the wording was strengthened in response to Wilson.) 

The message to Republican extremists is that their extreme accusations and tactics work. 

So Republicans and their media supporters will continue to scare citizens with fabricated issues like “Death Panels”.  They’ll continue to raise fears that a Presidential speech to school children is an attempt to indoctrinate them.  And they’ll continue to compare a centrist African-American President who continues to search for bipartisanship to Adolph Hitler.  (How can anyone actually believe this stuff?) 

Someone once said, “You can’t reason with unreasonable people.”  Yet Democrats continue to try to reason with Republicans.  Why? 

The revealing nature of Republican attacks.

Posted on by

Following Representative Wilson’s outburst during the President’s address before a joint session of Congress, I believe we have to ask ourselves some questions:  Is it a coincidence that the first such outburst was aimed at our first African-American President?  Is it a coincidence that the outburst came from a Congressman from South Carolina?  Is it coincidence that this is the first President accused of being born in another country despite indisputable evidence to the contrary?  Is it coincidence that this President is accused of creating death panels for senior citizens despite the facts?  Is it coincidence that this President is accused of trying to “indoctrinate our children” by merely encouraging them to work hard?  And is it coincidence that the number of death threats against our President has increased dramatically?

The conclusion is inescapable.  The attacks against President Obama represent more than a mere difference of opinion or ideology. 

From the moment he was sworn in, President Obama has been faced with an unprecedented combination of crises – a floundering economy, a failed financial system, a collapsed auto industry, millions of foreclosed homes, out of control health care costs, skyrocketing deficits and two wars.  These weren’t crises of his own making.  These were crises created under the previous administration.  Yet rather than rallying behind the President in the face of these crises as Democrats rallied behind Bush after 9/11, the Republicans have done everything possible to undermine Obama’s attempts to right our ship of state.   

Granted the attacks against President Obama are coming from a small, angry minority in Southern states.  (Okay, okay, I know I just described the Republican Party.)  But, in my lifetime, no President has faced such venomous and personal attacks.  Not Richard Nixon following the cover-up of the Watergate burglary.  Not Ronald Reagan following the cover-up of the sale of weapons to Iran.  Not George W. Bush following the lies that led to the unnecessary invasion of Iraq. 

Perhaps the real lesson of a Republican shouting “You lie!” at President Obama in the House chamber is this:  Pathological liars often assume everyone else is like them. 

What would Jesus do? If Jesus were a fascist.

Posted on by

Lately, I’ve been reading The Family – The secret fundamentalism at the heart of American power by Jeff Sharlet.  If you haven’t read the book, I highly recommend it.  It’s a fascinating read.  Yet Mr. Sharlet’s excellent account of the growth of Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. is utterly frightening. 

It’s not that I fear Christians.  But I do fear this particular brand of Christianity.

You see, Sharlet’s account of the fundamentalism that took shape in the 30s and 40s and has been growing ever since is of a “Christianity” embraced by the rich and powerful.  It seems that these people worship Jesus, not for his teachings of love and compassion.  Instead, they appear to be attracted to Jesus because of the power and influence he wielded.  Followers of this perverse form of fundamentalism also are said to admire Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Pol Pot for the same reasons.  Never mind that they were dictatorial and murderous.  They knew how to influence others and get things done.

I’ve often found that many religious zealots are of the “ends justify the means” variety.  Too often, they believe that they can do anything they want as long as it’s in the name of God.  (Indeed, throughout the course of my career I’ve found that they are the most likely default on their bills.)  But the Family appears to take the concept a bit further.  It would seem that, for this “religion,” the ends are a world dominated by large corporations and the wealthy. 

It’s not surprising to learn that some well-known conservatives and religious leaders are affiliated with the group.  It is, however, more startling to learn that many current Senators, Congressmen, former administration officials and corporate CEOs are linked to the movement.  Two of the most notable members are Sen. John Ensign and Governor Mark Sanford who have gained publicity for recent sex scandals.  Both have been residents of a Family owned home known as “C Street” that is tax-exempt since it is listed as a “church.”

If you have an interest in politics, or even in the future of our nation, I encourage you to read Jeff Sharlet’s account of this organization.  When you see the list of advocates for the Family, I think you’re likely to have the same reaction as I have.

Be afraid.  Be very afraid.

Suffering through the Bush administration was torture enough.

Posted on by

There’s a long-standing tradition in the U.S. surrounding a change in administration.  Typically, the former president simply fades away.  If he’s public service minded, he occupies his time with large scale charities (ala Jimmy Carter), relief efforts (ala George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton) and occasional foreign relations issues (ala Bill Clinton’s recent trip to N. Korea).  And with rare exceptions (Al Gore), the former vice-president simply fades into obscurity.  When’s the last time you heard anything about Dan Quayle?

How I wish that were the case with Richard (the Dick) Cheney!

Instead, the former vice-president and his daughter regularly deem it necessary to come out of their badger dens to eviscerate any who have dared to examine the former administration’s failings, of which there were many.

It’s bad enough to read accounts of Cheney’s torture programs from the past 8 years.  But it’s darn near unbearable to listen to Cheney’s tortured logic in his attempts to justify it.  Even if the program did yield information that couldn’t have been gathered any other way (and, despite Cheney’s insistence, it’s uncertain that it did), it was patently illegal and immoral for torture to have been authorized. 

However, the fact that Cheney would encourage and authorize such a program should have come as no surprise to anyone.  His hunting accident was indication enough of the Dick’s moral and ethical standards.  I’m not referring to the fact that he mistook a friend’s face for a bird, or that he waited hours to inform authorities (probably until he sobered up).  What was most revealing about the incident was the reality that he was “hunting” for captive birds that had been raised to become fodder for fat cats too lazy and too impatient to hunt in the wild.  Indeed, the game farm had provided Cheney and his friend with a “menu” of available birds, along with a hunting dog to flush them out of the areas where game farm employees “hid” them moments earlier.

How on Earth can it be considered “sport” to kill creatures in such circumstances?  That’s no more hunting than ordering chicken from the menu in a restaurant.  And it’s an indication of someone almost totally devoid of character.

I believe that Attorney General Holder was correct to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Dick’s torture program.  But I think the investigation is much too limited in scope.  In my opinion, President Obama should live up to his campaign pledge that he will ask his Attorney General to examine the legality of every Bush administration directive.  And, if I were president, I would subject Cheney to the same interrogation methods he so gleefully defends.

But since I’m not president, all I can hope for is that the Dick and Liz will decide to go hunting together.   May the best shot win.

Our government is not the enemy.

Posted on by

President Ronald Reagan is famous for saying, “Government isn’t the solution to our problem.  Government is the problem.”  The quote eloquently expressed his contempt for government.   An opinion I don’t share.

I have difficulty believing that my high school classmate who served as a Postman is an enemy.  I’m not frightened of another classmate who served as an engineer for the Navy.  And I certainly don’t view my Marine nephew who served in Iraq as an enemy. 

The government is comprised of many hard-working, well-intentioned people who provide valuable services to the rest of us.  Without the government, we would have no military, Coast Guard, police, fire fighters, park rangers, air controllers, customs officials, border patrol, immigration officials, highway engineers, sanitation workers and postal workers.  There would be no FDA, EPA, FEMA, FDIC or CDC.  No NASA.  No Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and VA services.  Without government subsidies, many family farmers could not make a living.  And most academic and research institutions would be unable to explore the limits of science and medicine.   

All of this is not to say that government agencies wouldn’t benefit from some reform and restructuring.  But vilifying them is disingenuous at best.  In general, government fulfills all of the tasks that are too important, too difficult or too unprofitable for private enterprise.  

Health insurance is a good case in point.

According to most estimates there are nearly 47 million uninsured in the U.S. and many millions more who are under-insured.  Why?  They either can’t afford health insurance, or they are not viewed as profitable enough for insurance companies.  Sounds like a perfect situation for a government-run health insurance option, doesn’t it? 

Not according to Republicans and their media mouthpieces.  To them, that would be Socialism, indeed Nazism.  It has also been said that a public option would represent unfair competition for privately run insurance companies.  Seriously?  To me, it sounds more like helping those who are falling through the cracks of our current system. 

But don’t count on logic permeating the thick skulls of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly.  And don’t count on Republicans stooping to something as unsavory as bipartisanship.  Look no further than recent statements made by two Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee who are alleged to be negotiating on health care reform.  Despite polls that show a significant majority of Americans want health care reform, including a public option, Senator Grassley stated that he won’t vote for any bill he negotiates unless he’s certain that a significant number of Republican Senators vote for it.  And Senator Enzi stated that he’s only continuing to negotiate with Democrats on the committee in order to delay and kill the legislation.

In other words, if there is to be any reasonable health care reform, Democrats are going to have to pass it by themselves.

It makes one wonder, if Republicans believe our government is so bad, why didn’t they simply abolish the abhorrent programs and departments when they had control of the Presidency and Congress?  And why did George W. Bush preside over history’s largest increase in the size of government during his administration? 

The next time you hear conservatives bash our government, remember this:  Our government was created of the people, by the people and for the people.  It is what we’ve created through our votes.  All the disciples of that slick-talking former actor can’t change that.

Democrats can’t compare to Republicans.

Posted on by

The continuing revelations of unethical, illegal and unconstitutional actions by the George W. Bush administration caused me to revisit the scandals of previous administrations during my lifetime.  I’m not talking about prurient sexual affairs.  I’m talking about the abuse of power by the Executive Branch and attempts to subvert our Constitution.

Let’s examine the record.  President Richard Nixon was forced out of office when it was discovered that he ordered his operatives to break into the Watergate offices of the Democratic National Committee.  He also authorized illegal wiretaps, improper tax audits, campaign fraud, and a variety of dirty tricks.  Then, when the actions of his operatives became public, he authorized an illegal slush fund to buy the operatives’ silence. 

In other words, Nixon not only tried to subvert our electoral process.  He obstructed justice.

Lost in the Watergate scandal is the fact that Nixon’s Vice-President, Spiro Agnew, pleaded no contest to charges of tax evasion and money-laundering.  His replacement, Gerald Ford, assumed the office of the Presidency after Nixon’s resignation in 1974 and became embroiled in controversy when he pardoned Nixon. 

Under President Ronald Reagan, the administration sold weapons to the Iranian government in order to finance Nicaraguan rebels (Contras) in violation of U.S. law.  The entire affair was kept secret from Congressional oversight committees, and when the affair was investigated, it was found that large volumes of documents had been destroyed by administration officials.  Although it was never proven that Reagan was directly involved in the scandal, it’s difficult to believe that he had no knowledge of the program.   

President George H.W. Bush not only pardoned most of those involved in the Iran-Contra affair.  On his watch, Savings & Loan institutions collapsed as the result of deregulation and overzealous lending as part of the real estate boom.  (Can it be possible that a near identical collapse of financial institutions during his son’s administration is just some sort of an eerie coincidence?)

Under President George W. Bush, the scandals were so numerous that Wikipedia has been forced to divide them into nine subcategories.  And Wikipedia doesn’t even list what may be the biggest failing of his presidency – ignoring clear warning of 9/11.  It has been well-documented that Bush ignored an August 2001 memo titled “Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S.”  It even mentioned the possibility of hijackings.

Neither does Wikipedia list Tom Ridge’s assertions that Bush officials asked him to raise the terrorist alert levels to help manipulate voters leading up to the 2004 election. 

Wikipedia does, however, list the abuses at Abu Grahib, the false statements made during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, false claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the outing of a CIA operative as payback for her husband exposing one of the claims used to sell the Iraq invasion, the politicization of the Justice Department through the dismissal of U.S. Attorneys for political reasons, the extraordinary renditions (read torture) of political prisoners, possible war crimes in Afghanistan, the imprisonment of detainees in Guantanamo without trial and without the right to know the charges against them, and the use of recess appointments to circumvent the Senate’s confirmation process.

Of course, there were also the no-bid contracts in Iraq for Halliburton and others, the out-sourcing of many of our military ops to Blackwater (aka Xe), the secret “hit squad” created by the CIA and Blackwater, the supposed legal foundation for torture, and many other issues which would be considered scandalous in more respectable administrations.

I can think of no equivalent scandals for Democratic administrations.  No attempts to subvert the Constitution.  No shadow governments.  No wars of convenience. 

Yet one of the true ironies of our current political climate is that conservatives have the unmitigated gall to accuse President Obama of perverting the Constitution by trying to rescue our economy and attempting to provide health care for all U.S. citizens.  They want to manufacture a scandal out of his birth certificate.  And they want to compare him to Hitler. 

Are conservatives so angry they lost the election that they can’t see the utter nonsense of their statements?  Or are they simply so gullible they’ll repeat anything Fox Noise, Rush Limbaugh and the NRA tell them to?  Whatever their reasons, the real question is this:  Given past performance, why would anyone vote for a Republican President ever again?

The end of voodoo economics?

Posted on by

I was never a big fan of President George H.W. Bush although, compared to his son, he was a fabulous president.  And he did get one thing right – his description of Reagan’s theory of trickle-down economics.  That’s right.  It was George, the elder, who first appropriately labeled it “Voodoo” economics. 

The idea that cutting taxes for the wealthy would somehow benefit the rest of us never really made any sense.  It was clear to me that the wealthy would simply spend the extra money on themselves or invest it in the stock markets.  I couldn’t see how the theory would result in more jobs or increased living standards for everyone else.

What did make sense to me was the idea of cutting taxes on companies that created jobs, and Reaganomics did do that.  Unfortunately, the Reaganists relaxed or eliminated many of the regulations and safeguards that controlled corporations.  The result was tax cuts and tax credits for large corporations that took their manufacturing jobs overseas.  And due to the lack of regulation, many corporations created phony “headquarters” in the Bahamas and the Caymans to avoid paying taxes altogether.  Amazingly, Republicans refused to even consider banning these off-shore companies from receiving U.S. government contracts. 

How on Earth were U.S. citizens, other than corporate officers, supposed to benefit from that?

The short answer is that we didn’t.

In an op-ed column for The New York Times, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman summarized the real effect of Reaganomics.  “…real incomes of the top .01 percent of Americans rose sevenfold between 1980 and 2007.  But the real income of the median family rose only 22 percent, less than a third its growth over the previous 27 years“.  Krugman also points out that “most of whatever gains ordinary Americans achieved came during the Clinton years “, and that President George W. Bush “…had the distinction of presiding over the first administration since Herbert Hoover in which the typical family failed to see any significant income gains”.

Of course, Krugman’s statistics don’t include the fiascos of 2008 in which the Fed started bailing out banks long before the public noticed; when gasoline prices hovered around $4 per gallon; when foreclosures dragged down the entire economy; and when the Bush and Obama administrations had to bail out Wall Street.  All of these issues are likely to make the final cost of Reaganomics look even worse.

Yet despite all evidence to the contrary and despite the near-disastrous collapse of our entire financial system under their leadership, Republicans still cling to the notion that the failed economic policy of their former leader and idol can cure our present-day problems.  “Make the Bush tax cuts permanent,” they say, “that will bring our economy back.” 

If Republicans should somehow regain control of Congress during the 2010 mid-term elections, be afraid, my friends.  Be very afraid.  Like other apparitions of black magic, voodoo economics may be more difficult to kill than you think.

Return to the “Good Old Days?” Be careful what you wish for.

Posted on by

I receive a lot of emails, mostly from my conservative friends, of the “Remember When?” variety.  Of course, they focus on the “Leave it to Beaver” days of the 1950 and 60s.  A recent one started me wondering why we look back on those days so fondly. 

After all, the 50s were pre-civil rights and pre-feminism.  They were also the days of Sen. Joseph McCarthy and impending doom from Soviet H-bombs.  And the 60s revolved around the Vietnam War.

So why do we remember those days so fondly?  I’m sure part of the reason is that we were kids and teens who didn’t worry about politics and the ills of the world.  In addition, there was a black and white honesty to those days when right and wrong seemed more clearly defined.  But I submit that one very big reason is that there was less disparity in income.  Around the small town where I grew up, it was more difficult to tell the “haves” from the “have-nots.” 

That was partly due to generational modesty – it just wasn’t polite to show-off. 

It also had a good deal to do with tax codes.  It might surprise you to learn that, during the Republican Eisenhower administration, the income tax rate for the top bracket was 91-92 percent.  In contrast, the tax rate for the bottom bracket was 22 percent.  By 1971, the top rate had dropped to 70 percent while the bottom rate dropped to 14 percent.  And today, the top rate is 35 percent while the bottom bracket is 10 percent.  

Given the fact that income taxes have dropped dramatically since 1951, you would think that most of us would be feeling pretty good about our taxes and government.  Unfortunately, there seems to be a growing anger as evidenced by the “tea-baggers” and “anti-health care reformists” who shout slogans and carry signs demanding their country back. 

Hmmm…I wonder how those people would feel about bringing back the tax structure of the “good old days?”

Those people seem to forget that many of the things we enjoy and take for granted were created by government and subsidized by taxes:  Education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, V.A., the G.I. Bill, the interstate highway system and the national park system to name just a few. 

The truth is we have more than any of the generations before us.  In general, we keep a greater percentage of our earnings than before.  We have more time for recreation than ever before.  And in comparison to the days of McCarthyism and Jim Crow laws, there’s less government intrusion in our lives.  So why do conservatives think the 50s and early 60s were so wonderful?

My theory is that, we didn’t have people like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glen Beck ranting about how bad our government is and trying to pit one faction of our population against another.