Part-Time Pundit

If Congressional Approval Falls Below 10%, Do We Get to Have Another Revolution?

The latest Zogby poll shows that only 11 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing. This is contrasted with Bush's underwhelming 29% approval rating. These polls show that Americans of all political stripes are losing faith in their government. Congress' all time low (prior to this poll) is 18% approval. Do we get to disband the government and write a new Constitution if it falls below 10%? For comparison, most foreign governments suffer a coup at these approval ratings.

The partisans on both sides will likely use this poll to show how the other party is ruining America. That's what they do and most people have adopted this approach. It doesn't matter who has the most coherent policy, it just matters how you can spin things to show the other party as a moral evil. This line of thinking misses the point.

The poll shows that the average American and the average politician are simply disconnected. The concerns of the average American aren't represented inside the Beltway and it shows that what's huge news on the cable news channels and in the latest partisan shouting matches isn't what matters most to Americans. And America is fed up.

It's not about a single issue, it's about the sum total of all the issues that America cares about that go ignored or are actively worked against by our politicians. Our candidates are pre-selected by party insiders where people who aren't "team players" (i.e. party hacks) are actively discouraged from running. Sure, they'll take your money but they want yes men in office.

We have representatives from every corner of this country in D.C. Yet all issues are effectively nationalized. How does a representative vote on a particular bill? With his caucus, not with the intentions of his constituents. There are rare exceptions, some of those are honest principled men, many are just media whores who like the press image of being a "maverick". And America is fed up.

This poll shows a population that is conditioned to think that the government will fix the big problems. The sub-prime mortgage fallout (which hasn't begun fully to set in) is a great example. Sure, we had banks with overly liberal lending habits that gave money away to people not likely to repay it. They should know better considering most every economic crisis in history was started by bad lending practices. However, the people taking out those loans aren't even on the radar. People don't think that the average citizen should be responsible for making bad economic decisions, it's the government's job to bail them out. Yet, the government consistently fails at doing so.

Katrina is another great example. Governmental failures abounded at every layer of government. The mayor did not use all the assets he had to protect his people. Over two-thirds of the police department walked off the job (and got free vacations to Vegas). Gov. Blanco and the Louisiana state government were more interested in embezzling disaster money than buying the equipment they needed. When it all came to a head because the governor and mayor did everything wrong, FEMA wasn't up to the task to clean up after them. The government told the people they would protect them, but it was the people who took care of themselves who came out of Katrina unscathed.

In every direction one looks, one can find a promise of government to help and that promise being broken. Corruption is rampant in both parties and the talking points that one party is more corrupt than another are simply absurd. Looking at the field of 2008 presidential contenders, it looks like it'll be more of the same. How much lower do approval ratings need to fall until Americans insist that things change?

Get An Online Education

Teach kids more with great geography lesson plans! There’s a lot to learn about U.S. government and the nation but when you use great teaching
tools you can help kids learn. Maybe someday they will get an online degree in a good career field because of helpful English lessons like these!

September 26th, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, Congress, Elections, Politics | one comment

Socializing the Free Market of Ideas

In response to the Center for American Progress's hit piece on talk radio imbalance, various Senators have expressed support for resurrecting the Cold War era "Fairness doctrine" which requires equal airtime for opposing points of view. Senator Feinstein (D-CA) specifically rejects she said they wanted a legislative fix for conservative talk radio, but still suspiciously supports the fairness doctrine as does Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL). Senator Kerry (D-MA) has also expressed his support.

The underlying notion is that somehow conservative talk show hosts and conservative radio owners have colluded to produce an effective monopoly on talk radio. Instead of bringing anti-trust charges, they've decided to try to regulate it. They conveniently forget the frequent attempts (and failures) of left-wing radio to get and stay on the air. The fact that there have been so many left-wing radio shows that make it on the air (but eventually fail) shows that market entrance is not difficult.

There is a latent idea that the public is unable to come to the "correct" conclusions on policy because talk radio is indoctrinating them. This vicious, un-American and treasonous idea is unworthy of political debate in this country. People can be trusted to make up their own minds and much research indicates that people listen to conservative talk radio not to make up their minds, but because their minds are already made up. If people can't be trusted to make their own minds up, then we ought to be having a discussion on repealing the right to vote, not about media ownership.

One thing to notice is that the market of news and opinion is not synonymous with AM radio. There is the internet, television, movies, podcasting, print, books and lectures. While conservatives do apparently dominate talk radio, liberals dominate television, movies and certainly academic lectures. If one doesn't want to listen to AM radio, they can turn on the TV, surf the internet, or listen to a podcast. There is nothing even approaching a limitation of the flow of information.

Yet, the fairness doctrine is only to apply to talk radio which is obviously an ideological-based attack on certain speech. It is no mistake that Democrats are the voices supporting this (though to be fair certain Republicans are warm to the idea because politicians always like silencing criticism). The resistance to "immigration reform" (which is essentially legalizing at least 12 million illegal immigrants and then not addressing the problems that caused the issue in the first place) was based on talk radio and the cognizanti don't want the influence getting in their way.

As a compromise measure, if we are going to enact a "fairness doctrine" for the radio waves, we should do so also for television. Let's have fairness on NBC, ABC and CBS which are also transmitted over the air. Let's have fairness on the movies shown on those channels so that they fairly represent all viewpoints instead of the latent left-wing propaganda that animates Hollywood. Let's have fairness in the various sitcoms that all portray fast and loose morals. We could have real family-friendly entertainment again.

We could also apply the fairness doctrine to the Internet to balance left-wing biases outlets such as Wikipedia and the Daily Kos. Let's apply the fairness doctrine to colleges and the classroom where indoctrination is most prevalent (and most left-wing). The possibilities are endless and the lawyers could be well-employed. Let's empower the Family Research Council to litigate fairness on all our media outlets.

The "fairness doctrine" is a relic of the past for a reason which will accomplish little more than stifling speech and more accurately stifle only certain ideological forms of speech. In their benevolence, Democrats will allow conservatives to have "free speech" as long as they are not allowed audiences. Unfortunately for them, "free speech" doesn't work that way. The free market of ideas doesn't need to be socialized by those who would pre-ordain the ideas that we are to hold.

July 2nd, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, Congress, Freedom of Speech, Politics | 6 comments

Rep. Murtha Proves Impeachment is About Criminalizing Conservatism

Listening to the far-left’s cries for impeachment one can seriously believe that the United States has become akin to fascist Germany. They seriously believe people are being rounded up in the middle of the night because they “spoke out”. Never mind not one single example can be mentioned.

Today the California Democratic Party passed a resolution calling for impeachment. This is significant because the California Democratic Party is no small organization.

The unfortunate thing is, many claims they make for Bush’s “crimes” are either not crimes or not true. While I’d prefer my elected leaders to not lie to me, there is nothing illegal about it. That, and whether or not he used false information, the fact that he was wrong does not prove he lied. In fact, if one actually reads the Downing Street Memo, they’d realize Bush genuinely believed the information he used. Being wrong is not a crime.

Further, “disclosing the name of an undercover CIA operative” is simply not true. First, undercover CIA operatives do not work at Langley… ever. However, more importantly, the facts have shown that it was Richard Armitage that leaked the name, not Bush.

Lastly, there is the issue of “signing statements” that are “used to ignore or circumvent portions of over 750 Congressional statutes.” Read the Constitution, the President is the chief law enforcer in the state and checks and balances allow him the leeway into how he applies the law. There is certainly on crime there.

While we can all find things we disagree with Bush about, impeachment is no small matter nor a political club to beat others with. When Clinton was impeached at least there was a crime involved (perjury), and at best all one could say was that it was a small crime that was “just about sex.” In this case, there are no real crimes involved at all.

Yesterday, Representative John Murtha had a rare moment of honest and told America what the impeachment drive is about. On CBS, Murtha said “What I’m saying, there’s four ways to influence a President. And one of them’s impeachment”.

The impeachment drive was never about the Geneva Conventions, the war, or any other supposed crime. It is about criminalizing conservatism, or more appropriate, criminalizing any idea not accepted by Democrats. Even a very flexible reading of the Constitution requires the President to be impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors”. No where is it even remotely suggested that impeachment is even legal in the case of political disagreement or unpopular policies. In fact, likely such an impeachment, if it occurred, would be overturned in the courts on just those grounds.

The party of “hate crimes” and “speech codes” has always sought to bring the law to bear to provide outside pressure to the debate. Instead of engaging in debate, they engage in threats. It’d be far easier to just ride out the next year and a half and just elect one of their own to the office instead. That is the democratic way, after all.

Impeachment talk began roughly on inauguration day in 2001 and it hasn’t stopped then. While Bush has certainly given them plenty of PR fumbles for the left to beat him up with, they certainly don’t rise to the level of impeachment. Since gaining power in Congress, the Democrats have consistently engaged in actions that rape our constitution and enshrine their own power. At least John Murtha is honest about it.

Know Your Rights

Don’t get stressed out about dealing with criminal matters by yourself, make sure to find a labor law attorney who can take are of any issues that come up. There are many discrimination lawyers and trustworthy local attorneys who can take care of the job. Get your legal issues taken care of right!

April 30th, 2007 Posted by John Bambenek | Congress, Impeachment, Law / Legal Issues, Politics | no comments

How long will it be before Democrats claim Sen. Johnson was assassinated?

A Democratic Senator Tim Johnson has just had a stroke. He’s in a Republican state which means the replacement could be a Republican giving the Senate back to the Republicans. How long will it be before people claim foul play?

December 13th, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | Congress, Politics | 5 comments

Rep. Murtha to America: How Dare you Question Me!!

When the incoming Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi put her weight behind John Murtha for Majority Leader, neither expected the firestorm that would erupt. It is true that John Murtha has been implicated, but not charged, in ethics scandals in the past. So what does John Murtha say in response to questions of his ethics, a subject that is well within the right of the public to question:

It’s a right-wing swift boat style attack on me!

First off, the Republicans have no bone to pick with Murtha being elevated to a position of leadership. In fact, while the GOP took about 8 years to set up a “culture of corruption”, it took the Democrats about 8 minutes. They aren’t even inaugurated yet and they’re putting corrupt cronies in office.

Second, it isn’t the right, but a Soros-backed political group who also ranks Murtha as one of the 20 most unethical people in Congress. It’s the far left that has a problem with Murtha. Republicans don’t expect any say in who becomes the majority leader of a party not their own.

The fact is, a politician’s integrity, particularly in the matters of bribery and nepotism, are quite clearly in the purview of the public interest. The difference between public servants and public masters is that the former is accountable to the people. When the people raise legitimate concerns, they deserve an answer not a rebuke for daring to raise the question to begin with.

Murtha’s answer is a harbinger of things to come, a majority party in Congress who will not stoop so low as to actually engage the people. They’re just too good to answer to the public.

The worst part about the escapade is that not only have the Democrats shown that the “culture of corruption” goes both ways, but they are in every way how they are described; out-of-touch elites who only deign to talk to voters in the months before an election. Even worse is that it will likely lead to a very short-lived Democratic majority in which the GOP doesn’t learn the lesson it needs to: we expect conservatism and integrity in our government.

It’ll be another two years where ideas are pushed aside and partisan bickering reigns.
R

November 15th, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | Congress, Corruption, Elections, National, Politics | no comments

Preemptive Strike: Bush Firing Rumsfeld is Heading Off Congressional Harassment

Around 1pm Eastern the day after the election, while Democrats were still celebrating their victories, Bush made a sudden announcement of the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. To many, this was icing on the cake of a good election. Many missed the larger picture.

Democrats largely did not campaign on any issues. Even their “New Direction” was nothing that voters really cared about. One of the things they did promise and do intend to make good on is to investigate the Bush Administration, from Katrina (likely “finding” racism instead of fault where it belongs), to Iraq, to… Big Tobacco???

The key issue to be investigated is obviously Iraq and everyone knows it. The Democrats will likely waste no time in beginning the investigation so Bush launched a preemptive strike before the Democrats finished their celebrations. The strategy of the Bush Administration will likely to move forward and find new avenues for success in Iraq. Rumsfeld leaving is the obvious side-effect of this policy shift.

Two months from now when the Democrats start asking for investigation after investigation, Bush can say “I’m trying to move forward in Iraq and shift policy so we can achieve success and all the Democrats want to do is dredge up the past and yet still provide no alternatives of their own.”

Bush is establishing a defense by making the investigations moot. If heads have already rolled, the Democrats will likely be seen as beating a dead horse. This will put them in a difficult position, one where their most vocal camps will insist that Bush be made to suffer and the nation be dragged through the mud for 6 years and the less vocal camps who will be turned off by such antics. It’s telling that the races where the war was the central issue, the militant left fringe lost.

Bush made a good play and is keeping his eye on the ball (2008). Will the Democrats be as wise?

November 9th, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | Congress, Elections, Impeachment, Law / Legal Issues, Military / War, National, Politics | one comment

Should Denny Hastert Resign?

UPDATE: I just discussed this with Bruno Behrend on the Extreme Wisdom radio show on WKRS, now streaming to the world.

UPDATE 2: And for the record, I fully support Foley being gone.

In a word, yes. Perhaps he really didn’t know about the instant messages as he suggests. Perhaps the media is being too hard on the Republican leadership. Perhaps this was part of a coordinated “October Surprise” to throw Republicans off their game in the month leading up the election. It doesn’t matter, if he didn’t know, he should have known. Is it fair? Probably not. But this is politics and being a leader is about more than being fair. It’s about being impeccable.

A question of timing

Is this an October Surprise? Was this held on to for release to counteract Karl Rove’s “Treason Season” just as Republicans were starting to make gains? Its politics, I wouldn’t put it past either side to pull a stunt like that. Bob Woodward’s book is a great example. It was explicitly timed for the election targeting the issue that the Republicans are strong on.

If it was that, it went too early. Five weeks from now, every iota of detail will be vetted on this issue. If Denny Hastert is going to resign, he will have done it. The Republicans have time, not a lot, to figure out how to handle this. If this scandal ran 10 days before the election they’d be screwed. As it stands, they may still be screwed. However, there is still some time to kick Hastert out (after all Republicans seem to be the only party who routinely kicks out their disgraced leaders, McGreevy being a notable Democrat exception) and to find out if this was timed by Democrats in a controlled leak.

However, this issue, coming out as it did, gave the Democrats a key attack to use against Congressional Republicans. Until now, the Democrats were essentially running against Bush. You may get some voters with that, but odds are, mostly the ones who’d vote for you anyway. When’s the last time an anti-war activist voted Republican? However, this scandal gave voters a reason to vote against House Republicans specifically. As much as conservatives (or anyone for that matter) complain about pork barrel spending, no one really believes that Congressional Democrats will be any better (see Illinois’ current financial problems). There haven’t been a lot of polls out to assess the damage yet, but common sense dictates it won’t be good. Nevertheless, this is the Republicans’ race to lose and they seem to be doing their best to do exactly that.

But what about the Party?

To hell with the Party. Every time I hear this objection the more I think the Republican Party should be razed to the ground. I expect this from elitists in the Democratic Party that insist the “common man” should shut up and let the enfranchised deal with the important issues. There is a reason we call office-holders in this country “public servants” and not “public masters.”

If the party wants to rally around corruption, rally around ebophiles (older adults attracted to teens), and rally around wasteful spending, then quite frankly, they aren’t the party I thought I was giving votes to. I once wrote an open letter to the Illinois Republicans, basically asking them for a platform. They told me to shut up and walk a precinct. I’ve never supported a state Republican since and won’t unless they’re going to help raze the ILGOP to the ground.

The stakes

The Republicans may pull it off, if they manage to find their roots and do the right thing. They may still lose but the argument that we demote our corrupt leadership and the Democrats promote or defend it can sell on Election Day. If they don’t boot Hastert, Shimkus, and Boehner (and to be strictly technical, all must lose their leadership rolls) then they will lose in November.

Let’s analyze what this loss will mean. First, it means that the 44th President of the United States may take office, not because of direct election, but because of impeachment. That person will be Nancy Pelosi. The last time I made this claim, the knee-jerk class of right-wingers jumped on my case. Does anyone seriously believe that Nancy Pelosi won’t try to impeach Bush?

Bush was declared a lame duck the day after the 2004 elections; an impeachment will effectively neuter him even if he’s not thrown out of office by the Senate. I simply don’t believe the Senate Republicans will all the sudden manage to vote as a bloc when impeachment is on the line. Three words “Gang of Fourteen”. Odds are, if the House switches hands, the Senate may very well follow suit. They’d need to still garner at least 10, probably more like 15, Republican votes to impeach. Democrats bought Jim Jeffords; it’s not inconceivable that they’d make a bunch of purchases in the light of giving their party the Presidency. Even if they don’t get 67 votes, if they get a majority the damage to Bush will be severe.

If Bush is impeached, any policy presented to Congress will be dead on arrival. The Democrats will likely affect a premature withdrawal from Iraq. They will likely return to the criminal model of fighting terrorist that was proven ineffective on September 11, 2001. They will likely raise taxes, enact the Terrorist Bill of Rights, and criminalize conservatism.

For instance, Francis Boyle (a key author of a draft articles of impeachment) criminalizes such thought crimes as not providing Equal Protection to Katrina victims because a predominant amount of the victims were black. One factual problem, Whites were more likely to die in Katrina than Blacks.

Boyle constitutes the ineffectual response to Katrina as “homicides” despite the fact that the ineffectual response also falls on the shoulders of the Mayor and Governor, whom Bush has no effective control over. The implicit demand is that the federal government should be solely vested with disaster response, an even stronger central government than we have now.

He claims that the soldiers are predominantly poor who are coerced into service by being “denied viable opportunities.” Read as: it is the government’s constitutional obligation to provide for decent, high-paying, and high-benefit jobs for all its citizens under the penalty of criminal law.

The Democrats have used the courts to change the law around the will of the people and constitution for decades. Now they’ll use the impeachment process as well.

Denny Hastert, Defender of Corruption

When Democrat Congressmen Jefferson’s office was searched by the FBI in the performance of a criminal investigation were copious amounts of evidence exist, Denny Hastert cried foul. He said it was a dire breach of separation of powers that the executive branch conducted a search of a legislative office after being authorized to do just that by the judiciary. Two branches authorized a check against the third. Jefferson was using his congressional office to facilitate crime and Hastert tried to blanket Congress with immunity. For that reason alone, he should resign. By the way, Jefferson is still in office. No credible evidence has been presented against Tom DeLay and DeLay resigned.

He oversaw rampant spending in the House, pulled the immunity stunt to defend Jefferson, and was at best negligent over Foley. I’m a cynical person so I’m not the best judge. I described the story to my wife and her first question was “Well, who else did Foley talk to?” Hastert looked at the issue like a politician and not a leader. He (along with the media who looked into the emails) looked at the emails, found there was nothing illegal, and looked no further. A leader would have looked for a pattern of behavior. In the end, he failed his Party, his colleagues, the pages, and the American people. Arguments that “political correctness” prevented an investigation because Foley was gay are just an excuse. A leader does his job not looks for excuses to cover his ass. Likewise, the fact that Foley was “closeted” caused his ebophilia are likewise nonsense. The idea that a failure to express same-sex attraction disorder leads to pathological sexual malformities is a myth that needs to be smashed center-stage.

Sexual predilections and Congress

What is it with Congress anyway? Gary Condit had an affair with someone who ended up dead. Foley wasn’t the first to be involved in a page scandal. Kennedy got drunk, smashed his car, and gets a ride home instead of a DUI. McKinney hits a cop and gets off. Not only do these political leaders come from an entire different class than common people. The days of the “citizen-legislator” are gone and this is what we get. The rules apply to us and not to them. It’s not until normal people start running for office when this crap will stop.

Conservatives want a change

Conservative apathy is considered a big problem for Republicans coming into November. Nothing would appease them better than saying they are going to go back to their roots and make the painful changes to prove it. This is probably their last opportunity to prove to their base that they plan to enact policies that we put them in office to enact. Will Denny do the right thing?

October 3rd, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | Congress, Corruption, Hastert, National, Politics | 3 comments