Category Archives: Tea Party

“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. 

The end of hope?

Posted on by

President Obama campaigned for office with a message of hope – of changing the political climate in Washington.  And he has tried mightily.  He has consistently reached out to Republicans for ideas and support.  Not since Lincoln has a President tried to appoint so many members of the opposition party to his Cabinet. 

Yet in the issues that matter most, President Obama has not garnered a single Republican vote.  Not on the much-needed stimulus package.  Not on the loans to automakers.  And, so far, not on health care.

Indeed, the Republican response to his efforts for bipartisanship may be best summarized by Congressman Joe Wilson’s outburst, “You lie!” screamed at the President during his speech calling for health care reform. 

In the charade of bipartisanship seen at most Presidential speeches before a joint session of Congress, Joe Wilson’s rant was rude and outrageously disrespectful.  Yet compared to the stone faces and scowls of Republican legislators sitting on their hands, it had a certain authenticity.  All Wilson did was bring the ugliness that has been displayed at so-called “Town Hall Meetings” and on conservative talk radio into the Capitol chamber.   

Were other Republicans so forthright, we would have been treated to shouts of “Socialist”, “Nazi”, “Communist”, “Death Panels”, “Pull the plug on Granny” and “Show us your birth certificate!”

Of course, Republicans like Sen. Kyl, Sen. Grassley, Sen. Coburn and Sen. Enzi prefer not to confront their Democratic colleagues with such unpleasantness.  They would rather make their disrespectful and inane rants in front of crowds comprised of uninformed conservatives, and on Fox News Network where no commentator or host would consider challenging such statements.

Now President Obama has drawn a line in the sand.  He has stated that he will hold opponents accountable for their distortions and lies.  However, I believe that the President will not give up on bipartisanship easily.  I believe he will keep trying to change the tone of political conversation for as long as he is in office. 

Despite his efforts, I can’t imagine that Republicans will cease their cynical and mean-spirited attacks.  They will continue to pander to their ever more conservative and uninformed base.  And, of course, they will continue to provide red meat to Fox News Network and conservative talk radio.  The only real question is whether or not the independents and moderates will reward such cynical and partisan rhetoric  by voting for Republicans. 

I am becoming less and less hopeful.

The other side of Reaganomics:

Posted on by

In a previous post, I stated my belief that Reaganomics was an utter failure.  That’s not entirely true.  It was a huge success for the wealthy.  It also successfully eroded the power of organized labor. 

When Reagan fired the striking air traffic controllers who were members of PATCO, I believe he inspired his followers to launch an attack on all labor unions.  Since that time, there has been a steady outsourcing of American manufacturing jobs to places like China, India, Indonesia and Mexico.   This has forced unions to make concessions with regard to wages and benefits.  The recent troubles of GM and Chrysler are good cases in point. 

During the debate over auto industry bail-outs, the discussion seemed to revolve around the wages and benefits of United Auto Workers.  Never mind the decades of questionable decisions by the company executives, along with their inflated salaries.  In the minds of many, the real problem is that UAW workers were paid more than their counterparts at Honda, Toyota, Nissan and other import brands.  The claims were that while the workers for foreign brands were paid approximately $45/hr, UAW workers were paid $70/hr or more.  Outrageous!  Right? 

Well, hold on a moment.  My UAW friends tell me that the figure of $70/hr not only included wages and benefits such as health care.  It also included the cost of benefits for recent retirees, plus all costs associated with workers – overtime costs, Social Security, Medicare, etc.  It even includes the cost of tools used by the workers!  Take away all of those costs and the actual average hourly wage was $29.78. 

But it’s not just lower wages the Reaganites are after.   What they really want to do is to rid corporations of the obligation for health and retirement benefits.  And what better way to accomplish than to crush organized labor? 

It took a couple of wars, the Great Depression and many bloody management/labor clashes for conditions to improve for American workers.  I fear that Reaganomics combined with globalization and the greed of CEOs may be leading us back to labor conditions similar to those under the robber Barons of the early 1900s when work was more like servitude.

The myth of guns as self-defense weapons.

Posted on by

For years, the NRA and its associated wing nuts have been trying to convince Americans that everyone should carry a gun.  And some of those card-carrying dimwits came to Congressional town hall meetings armed with guns to make their point. 

The 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights states “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  The gun-toting NRA supporters always focus on the second part of the sentence.  They choose to ignore the first part.  In any event, the amendment raises more questions than it answers.  It seems the intent of the founding fathers was to ensure the defense of our nation and the ability to protect it from an insurrection.  But what is the definition of a well regulated militia?  Is that not intended to refer to our nation’s military?  Or perhaps the National Guard?  Or does an armed mob of “tea baggers” and sheet-clad, anti-Obama fascists qualify?

Similarly, if everyone is permitted to keep and bear arms, where do you draw the line?  Currently, anyone can purchase assault rifles and semi-automatic handguns.  But should an NRA member also be allowed to own a 50-caliber machine gun (I hear they’re fabulous for deer hunting)?   A fully-functional Abrams tank (maybe for big game)?  A nuclear-tipped cruise missile?  Certainly, the nation’s founders would have drawn a line in there somewhere. 

Moreover, despite statements of NRA gunslingers to the contrary, a gun is an offensive weapon.  It is, in fact, a lousy defensive weapon.  If you’re attacked while carrying a gun, you have to count on drawing your gun and getting off an accurate shot before the attacker gets to you.  If you don’t, the attacker may actually turn your own gun against you. 

And if both you and the attacker are armed with guns, the “winner” is determined by whoever gets off the more accurate shot first.  (I hear you want to give yourself an edge by keeping the sun to your back.)

The fact is that guns tend to escalate confrontations more often than they solve them.  If you have a gun, you feel compelled to use it.  (My distant relative, Billy Clanton, was armed at the OK Corral, and look how well that turned out for him.)  But if you don’t have a gun, you tend to avoid confrontations or look for other ways to resolve them. 

I own several rifles and a shotgun, but I don’t carry them to public meetings.  Neither do I carry my Tibetan sword, Chinese hook swords, butterfly swords, broadsword, Tai Chi sword, Indonesian Kris, chain whip, 3-section staff, spear, staff, nunchakaus, tonfas, and knives.   But maybe I should.  There must be a Republican town hall coming to my vicinity soon.

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?

For me, the (Republican) party’s over.

Posted on by

For many years, there was a tradition in politics. You could count on each side giving its “spin” on an issue in hopes of influencing voters to their point of view. If you didn’t have the time or inclination to research the issue on your own, you could be relatively certain that the truth was somewhere in the middle. But sometime in the 1990s that changed.

I first realized the change in 1999 when I visited the website of the Republican National Committee in search of quotes from conservative Republicans. What I found was “Gore Gaffs,” dozens of ridiculous statements attributed to then-Democratic presidential candidate, Al Gore. The only problem was that I recognized all of the quotes as having been made by Dan Quayle. I was dumbfounded. Why would the leadership of a political party lie about something that could so easily be disproved? For what possible benefit?

The only conceivable answer is a cynical one – the party believes that no one will actually recognize the lie or hold the party accountable. Unfortunately, “Gore Gaffs” foreshadowed an ugly and disturbing trend by the party.

The Bush administration used lies and half-truths to lead us into an unnecessary war in Iraq. It lied about the “outing” of a clandestine CIA agent whose husband publicly exposed administration lies during the run-up to the war. It lied about the firing of U.S. Attorneys. It lied about eaves-dropping on American citizens. The list of lies during the Bush administration is quite lengthy and growing. In fact, former Homeland Security Director, Tom Ridge, recently admitted that he was pressured to raise the security threat level in 2004 to help Bush get re-elected. And it was recently discovered that former Vice-President Dick Cheney and the CIA hired a mercenary force (Blackwater, aka Xe) to form an international hit squad that was unconstitutionally kept secret from Congress.

Complicit in all of the lies are Fox News and conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh. Rush has long been known to make things up in order to whip his audience into a frenzy and increase his ratings. And, although Fox claims to be “fair and balanced”, it’s anything but. Former Bush Press Secretary, Scott McClellan, admitted that the administration used Fox to “get out its talking points.” It takes only a few minutes of viewing to realize that Fox News is simply a megaphone for Republican lies. But, of course, its viewers are so partisan or uninformed that they don’t care or don’t know.

During the 2008 presidential election, the GOP was in full attack mode. The difference in tone couldn’t have been more striking. Indeed, had one not known better, one might have concluded that all of the problems created by 8 years of the Bush administration were actually the fault of the Democrats.

The 2008 elections were a strong rebuke of the Republican Party and its policies. But rather than examining the policies that led to the election defeat, the party decided to redouble its attacks. Republicans and their surrogates blame the loss on perceived voter fraud by Acorn. And, with a lack of real leadership, the party has turned to Rush Limbaugh as its titular leader. He and other conservatives are not just “spinning” issues based on their point of view. They are creating, or at least repeating, lies in order to scare people about the new administration’s policies.

Attempts to rescue our financial system following its collapse under Bush are described as “socialist” and unnecessary government intervention. The same terms were used to describe the rescue of the auto industry, one of our nation’s few remaining manufacturing industries. A carbon cap and trade bill will “lead to the collapse of the energy industry and put millions out of work.” Health care reform is a “Nazi policy using death panels designed to kill granny” or an attempt to “put bureaucrats between you and your doctor.” Never mind that three government-run health care programs are run quite well. VA, Medicare and Medicaid are generally well-liked by those who participate in them.

At town hall meetings, angry conservatives have tried to shout down any real discussion of the issues, and, as if to make their shouts more forceful, some have brought loaded guns.

The Republican Congressmen and Senators refuse to discuss policies or the merits of legislative initiatives. They offer no counter-proposals. All they offer are lies, fear and more tax cuts for large corporations and the wealthy. And if any Republicans dare break ranks with their brethren on a single vote, they’re labeled RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) and they’re attacked by even more conservative candidates in the primaries.

For more than 30 years, the Republican Party has led an assault on the middle class and the poor with “trickle down” economics. In truth, under Republican leadership, the economy was reduced to a trickle. And none of the tax cuts have trickled down.

Indeed, a recent study found that the disparity between the wealthy and the rest of the population has reached the highest level since 1913, and the tax rate on the wealthy has dropped from 70 percent in 1980 to 35 percent in 2009. Thanks to Republican policies, as of 2007 .01 percent of the population controlled 10 percent of the wealth and 10 percent of the population controlled 49 percent of the wealth. And, if you want to consider the effect of Republican policies on health care reform, 47 million Americans are now uninsured, millions more are underinsured and nearly a million Americans will be forced into bankruptcy this year by illness.

This is why a fiscal conservative and social liberal like me no longer votes for Republicans. After 40 years as an independent, I am now a proud member of a party that respects me enough to not lie to me.