Kansas and Kansas Republicans in NY Times today

A breaking article on the sad, sad state of Kansas politics in general and the Kansas Republican Party, specifically:

The End of a Kansas Tradition: Moderation

I doubt there is any better (worse?) example of a group of people voting against their own best self-interests than middle- and lower-class Kansans voting the Republican Party but there you are.

Link to full story here: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-end-of-a-kansas-tradition-moderation/

The plusses and minuses of Sen. Lugar's loss in Indiana

As with most anything, there are, in fact, positives and negatives in Indiana Senator Richard Lugar's loss last night.

There's so much shock about this, too, that it's surprising.

The shock is that this never used to happen.

It never used to be that a long-sitting Senator would be unseated. As long as they had breath and wanted their seat, they could have it. It was virtually always so.

But now, with the emergence of the Tea Party, at least, and the really awful economic situation of the country--the worst in 80 years, since the Great Depression--things have changed. People have changed. We, the people want and need solutions and people who will take us to those solutions.

The fact is, Richard Lugar had been in office for 7 terms, for starters. Worse, really, was that he hadn't lived in Indiana for some time, either. At one point, it had been ruled he wasn't even a member of his own constituent area. He hadn't lived in Indiana since 1977, at one point.

The fact that he was a moderate should have, historically, been in his favor and it would have been in normal times.

But these are anything but normal times.

So on the one hand, the time had come for Senator Lugar to perhaps be replaced. He'd been in the Senate for a long time. He was, after all, 80 years old.

On the other hand, he will, quite possibly, be replaced by an extremely Right Wing Tea Party member.

New ideas and new people should be good for the Senate and the people represented. But if they're represented by extremists of either or any side, it's likely not a positive step forward. We need balance.

So let me be clear on this--I think the extreme wings of either political party--no matter the party--is unhealthy for the people and nation. It's only when you have consensus from the middle, the masses, for the entire nation, will we get progress for the entire nation--for all of us.

Link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-05-08/lugar-indiana-senate-mourdock/54844834/1

Mitt Romney: King of Bain

More of the best TV on TV

I've often held that National Public Radio--NPR--is the best radio on radio. I have to go one step further, in a similar thread, and say that for news, coverage of important national issues on their news, their history specials, their entertainment with series like "Downton Abbey" and, Austin City Limits, broadcasts from the Metropolitan Opera in New York and more, PBS--the Public Broadcasting System--is some of the, if not the best television on TV. With all that in mind, I have to say I think their PBS Newshour nightly discussion with David Brooks and Mark Shields is the calmest, most lucid, intelligent, least emotional and partisan and so, most important, regular discussion on our national politics, politicians and situations in the country, I feel sure. The country would be helped greatly if more people saw this brief segment and really listened to the men.

Quote of the day

"There are no moderates in the other party. 'Moderate Republican' is like 'friendly shark' or 'straight priest.' It just doesn't exist."  --Bill Maher


(I personally take exception here.  I think there are, in fact, moderate Republicans--David Brook being a moderate Conservative.  It's just that the moderates aren't involved and engaged.  The leadership of the Republican Party is held hostage by the extremists who are outspoken and engaged in the process.  They are, at times, too, handing out money as in the cases of the Koch brothers and the Heritage Foundation).

Link:   http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/bill-maher-the-rolling-stone-interview-20110420

A column someone from the "left" could have written

A column from The New York Times, written by Consevative David Brooks, also posted in The Kansas City Star, yesterday, that could have been written by someone from the Liberal "left":

The Story of an Angry Voter

By DAVID BROOKS

Let’s imagine a character named Ben. A couple of decades ago, Ben went to high school.

It wasn’t easy. His parents were splitting up. His friends would cut class to smoke weed. His sister got pregnant. But Ben worked hard and graduated with decent grades and then studied at East Stroudsburg University and the University of Phoenix.

That wasn’t easy either. Ben would like to have majored in history, but he needed a skill so he studied hotel management. Others spent their college years partying, but Ben worked hard. After graduation, he got a job with a hotel chain. A few years later, he got a different job and then a different one.

He didn’t have lifetime security or a fabulous salary, but Ben worked. He filled in for the night manager, hired staff and cleaned up the breakfast area when that needed doing.

In other words, in school, he labored when others didn’t. At work, he sacrificed when others didn’t. He bought a house he could afford when others didn’t.

This wasn’t a robotic suburban life. It was a satisfying, moral way of living. Ben lived according to an ethos of what you might call “earned success.” Arthur Brooks has a good description of this ethos in his new book “The Battle.” As Brooks (no relation) observes, the key to happiness is not being rich; it’s doing something arduous and creating something of value and then being able to reflect on the fruits of your labor.

For Ben, right and wrong is contained in the relationship between effort and reward. If people do not work but get rewarded, that’s wrong. If people work and do not get rewarded, that’s wrong. But Ben believed that America is fundamentally a just society. He loved his country because people who work hard can usually overcome whatever unfairness is thrust in their way.

But when Ben looked at Washington, he saw a political system that undermined the relationship between effort and reward. People in Washington spent money they didn’t have. They just borrowed it from the Chinese. People in Washington taxed those with responsible homes to bail out people who’d bought homes they couldn’t afford.

People in Congress were caught up in a spoils system in which money was taken from those who worked and given to those with connections. Money was taken from those who produced and used to bail out the reckless, who were supposedly too big to fail.

This was an affront to the core values of Ben’s life.

Once there was a group in the political center that would have understood Ben’s outrage. Moderates like Abraham Lincoln believed in the free labor ideology. Their entire governing system was built around encouraging labor and rewarding labor.

But these days, the political center is a feckless shell. It has no governing philosophy. Its paragons seem from the outside opportunistic, like Arlen Specter, or caught in some wishy-washy middle, like Blanche Lincoln. The right and left have organized, but the center hasn’t bothered to. The right and left have media outlets and think tanks, but the centrists are content to complain about polarization and go home. By their genteel passivity, moderates have ceded power to the extremes.

So when Ben looked around for leaders who might understand his outrage, he only found them among the ideological hard-liners. In Arkansas, he saw a MoveOn candidate, Bill Halter, crusading against the bailouts and the spoils culture. On the right, he saw the Tea Party candidate Rand Paul crusading against runaway spending and debt.

Ben wasn’t naturally an extremist sort of guy. He didn’t live his life for politics or go in for the over-the-top stuff he heard on talk radio. But he did have some sense that the American work ethic was being threatened by debt and decadence.

It was going to take spit and vinegar to turn things around. So he voted for one of the outsiders. This is not time for a tinkerer, he figured. It’s time for a demolition man.

In a few years’ time, Ben is going to be disappointed again. He’s going to find that the outsiders he sent to Washington just screamed at each other at ever higher decibels. He’s going to find that he and voters like him unwittingly created a political culture in which compromise is impermissible, in which institutions are decimated by lone-wolf narcissists who have no interest in or talent for crafting legislation. Nothing will get done.

In a few years’ time, Ben is going to look for something else. It will be interesting to see if, by that time, any moderates have had the foresight and energy to revive and define the free labor tradition — a tradition that uses government to encourage work, to reward work, and to uphold the values at the core of Ben’s life.

Food for thought.

As Mr. King asked, "Can't we all just get along?"