I sometimes wonder about our priorities as an electorate.
I can deal with compromise. I won't complain too loudly that we extended the Bush Tax Cuts to get an extension of unemployment. How the president managed to negotiate a 13-month unemployment extension for a two-year tax cut is another matter, but still, I won't belabor that sore subject.
What I don't understand is why we allow our elected leaders to continue to run a government that cannot function.
It would be really sweet to see the surviving democratic members of the "Gang of Fourteen" publicly state that they made a mistake in preventing the "nuclear option" back in 2005. I knew back then that in the long term, the best thing the democrats could do for themselves was stiffen their backs and let the republicans kill the filibuster.
I don't hear this history revisited enough, and I think it is a debate we need to have.
Every time I listen to an NPR hourly newscast, I hear a new sound byte of Mitt Romney saying that the president's policies "aren't working."
Of course not. And when you get into office, we'll make sure your policies don't work either, assuming you have any. We will compromise, filibuster or block everything you try to do, as best we can.
Besides, what Romney says isn't entirely true. The Omnibus/Stimulus plan was working. It was creating jobs! The only question was "how many?"
I can see how Romney might complain that Obama's healthcare reforms aren't working. After all, Romney could conceivably and credibly take credit for them himself. "His healthcare reforms aren't working," Romney might say, "but I am proud to say that my healthcare reforms are not only working well in Massachusetts, but they are expanding and spreading throughout the country!"
I wonder why he doesn't say this?
Say what you want about John Boehner, but at least his every utterance and ascent to power aren't quite the embarrassment that Mitch McConnell's is.
He must photograph himself leaving church frequently, because I can't begin to understand why the people of Kentucky keep sending him back to the senate over and over again.
I sometimes wonder if the wrong 20 percent of America doesn't live in Kentucky. They must have a headquarters there. It's the new Texas.
This is the guy who has publicly pledged to keep the country in the sewer as a means of obtaining power for his party. He has also made his career in the senate by acting as the Champion of Bribery.
Remember, republican love bribery and graft so much, they made Mitch McConnell their leader!
When asked how he will provide health care to the uninsured once Romobamaneycare is revoked, he states "that's not the issue" on national television.
Who is voting for this guy? Seriously. What kinds of democrats exist in Kentucky that either can't raise the money or can so easily be rendered scary by the opposition?
I wonder what would happen if Kermit the Frog moved to Kentucky and ran against him. Could Kermit possibly win? He's more credible, has more charisma, better leadership qualities, is better-looking, and doesn't make anyone who cares about America want to wince with everything he says.
If I could run the election, I would ignore Romney and run against McConnell, because he represents the worst that could happen if the republicans win.
If we haven't learned anything else, we should know that electing one man to one office is not enough.
Government is run by committees, which are run by majorities. Congress is not the president's cabinet, and therefore we can't entirely blame the president for legislation he can't bring to the floor.
Some 50+ years ago, we somehow let the supreme court decide it was part of the legislature. Back in high school, they told me it was because sometimes the elected part of the government didn't have the balls to make the tough choices (yes, my high school history teacher actually used the word "balls." Stunning but true).
See where this has gotten us? We are a tiny thread away from a court that is the mini-legislative branch, with more power than the other two combined. And they aren't elected.
Is the way the supreme court currently operates constitutional?
While Obama continues to highlight his accomplishments, while he tries with futility to convince us of his good works, we as an electorate continue to put the cart before the horse, to get a government that produces for its people when it is so badly broken it cannot even function.
Nobody is talking about that.
I thought -- hoped -- that was what the Occupy movement was about. Sadly, it turned out to be the perverted political episode of a "Seinfeld" concept that never was: a stupid and pointless tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.
Oh well.
So much for hope.