Republicans can try to say it ain’t so, but a newly developed statistical measure says it is: The GOP’s delaying tactics and outright obstruction of President Obama’s judicial nominees have reached epic proportions. According to Greg Sargent, at the Washington Post’s Plum Line blog:

Dr. Sheldon Goldman, a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts who focuses on judicial nominations, has developed what he calls an “Index of Obstruction and Delay” designed to measure levels of obstructionism.

Goldman calculates his Index of Obstruction and Delay by adding together the number of unconfirmed nominations, plus the number of nominations that took more than 180 days to confirm (not including nominations towards the end of a given Congress) and dividing that by the total number of nominations. During the last Congress, Goldman calculates, the Index of Obstruction and Delay for Obama circuit court nominations was 0.9524.

“That’s the highest that’s ever been recorded,” [says Goldman].  “In this last Congress it approached total obstruction or delay.”

By comparison, Goldman ran the same measurement on the 108^th Congress, from 2003-2004, when George W. Bush was president, and Republicans controlled the Senate. The Index of Destruction and Delay for that period was a much lower 0.6176.

Anybody who’s been paying attention could have guessed that. But it’s helpful to see the hard numbers.

The post Measuring Republican nay-saying: The Index of Obstruction and Delay appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Gaius Publius writing at Americablog comments on a recent New York Times article on this election cycle’s monstrous cost. I suggest reading the NYT article then read Gaius’ commentary here—one of two posts he is writing on money in this past election. The second post will deal with foreign contributions, which, he notes, appear to be “banned from public discourse.”

In his first post on 2012 election spending, Gaius covers the main players: Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Brothers, wrestling executive Linda McMahon, and other oligarchs and what they gave. He also mentions Joe Ricketts, owner of the Chicago Cubs who spent almost $13 million to attack President Obama on federal spending. Gaius’ comment:

See what happens when sports owners are made invisible to the fans? Fans give them their money to spend against them. Dumb; really dumb. Take that, Cubs fans. And don’t worry, there’s plenty more waiting. You give him the wherewithal, every losing season.

So will a more politicized and politically enlightened electorate put heat on elusive arch-conservative sports owners? Will fans begin to boycott games over an owner’s massive right wing political spending aimed squarely against their interests? Interesting thought as we move on from a startling election that resembled the awakening of a sleeping giant—a brown-faced electorate that will no longer tolerate Republican attempts to suppress their voices and votes.

In one of his most interesting insights, Gaius fingers corporate owned networks and TV stations as deeply invested in perpetuating our massively expensive elections. He asks:

Where did all this money go? Most of it went to the media:

Remember how I said above that the media — the networks and TV stations — were a huge part of the [election reform] problem? Most people only look at the front end of the election system. They see how Big Money buys candidates who pay them back with favorable laws, low taxes, and lack of prosecutions.

But think of the candidate as just a pass-through for the cash. The money starts somewhere (Our Betters); they give it to campaigns and campaign surrogates; tons of people take a very generous cut; and it ends up somewhere. The candidate isn’t bought with the money; the candidate is bought with electoral office.

What does most of that money actually buy? TV time. Very expensive TV time. Think for a minute from the standpoint of the network or TV station owner:

■ I the media owner have a broadcast license that, in practice, I can never lose. (I pray daily to the Great God Clinton, blessings on his name, for that one.)

■ I have a political system that allows me to charge big bucks for what used to be free — access to TV for candidates.

■ I have a campaign financing system that dumps unlimited money into the pockets of politicians and their supporters — and that money needs to be spent.

■ Who do they spend it on? Me.

As a general rule, 75% of campaign money goes to media and communications, and while I don’t have the TV numbers (national and local), I’d bet that TV accounts for the bulk of it.

And this is why we may never get low-cost uncorrupted elections. It’s not just the candidates who are corrupted. Everyone who touches that money is corrupted — especially the end-user, our national and local media. They will kill to keep things just like this. Wouldn’t you, if you were a monomaniac money-seeker (sorry, corporate-profit-responsible CEO)?

I’ll link to part 2 of Gaius’ comments on money in the 2012 election when he posts it.

The post 2012 election cost a monstrous $6 billion appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In the following video, Mike Papantonio, host of Ring of Fire Radio, suggests that the GOP is no longer a viable political party. Thanks in part to the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, the Republican Party has been completely taken over by a group of billionaires. Think Koch brothers, Harold Simmons, the Marriots, Sheldon Adelson.

The takeover started decades ago when a small group of extremely wealthy people led by Adolph Coors (beer baron, and founder of the Heritage Foundation) recruited Ronald Reagan to be their front man. Their intention was to destroy labor unions, crush the progressive political movements of the previous decade, and slowly and steadily move the country to the right. Reagan did his best to deliver on their expectations. Over time, they have systematically consolidated their hold on state governments. They created ALEC to churn out 1000 right wing, corporate friendly model bills per year. They have succeeded in getting right wing governors elected in a number of states, and now they are again going for the presidency with their new front man, Mitt Romney. Papantonio explains how this “hostile takeover” of the Republican Party is deeply threatening to the future of the United States.

Mike Papantonio, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Sam Seder co-host Ring of Fire Radio.

The post Mike Papantonio: A handful of billionaires control the GOP appeared first on Occasional Planet.

On November 29, Pew Research Center reported that since the 2010 midterm elections, the Tea Party has lost support nationwide and also in the 60 congressional districts represented by members of the House Tea Party Caucus. In what could be good news for Democrats in the upcoming election, the reputation of the Republican Party has declined sharply in Tea Party controlled districts and to a lesser extent across the country at large. It’s not surprising since the movement was never a true grass roots movement, having been conceived by corporate lobbyists as a way to further the interests of the 1%.

In the latest Pew Research Center survey, conducted Nov. 9-14, more Americans say they disagree (27%) than agree (20%) with the Tea Party movement. A year ago, in the wake of the sweeping GOP gains in the midterm elections, the balance of opinion was just the opposite: 27% agreed and 22% disagreed with the Tea Party. At both points, more than half offered no opinion.

Throughout the 2010 election cycle, agreement with the Tea Party far outweighed disagreement in the 60 House districts represented by members of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus. But as is the case nationwide, support has decreased significantly over the past year; now about as many people living in Tea Party districts disagree (23%) as agree (25%) with the Tea Party.

Republican party also losing favorability

According to Pew, the Republican Party’s image also has declined substantially among people who live in Tea Party districts. Currently, 41% say they have a favorable opinion of the GOP, while 48% say they have an unfavorable view. As recently as March of this year, GOP favorability was 55% in these districts, with just 39% offering an unfavorable opinion. Among the public at large, only 36% say they have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, down from 42% in March.

The Democratic Party has lost public support but not by nearly as much. Nationwide, polling shows a drop from 50% favorable last summer to 48% in October. In Tea Party districts, only 39% have a favorable view of the Democratic Party, while 50% hold an unfavorable view. In other words, voters in Tea Party districts are now viewing both the Republican and Democratic parties negatively. Meanwhile, Democrats are holding their own nationwide.

The post Support for Tea Party plummets appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In 1948, President Harry S Truman summed up his view of the Republican Party this way:

… I have studied the Republican Party for years at close hand …. And I have discovered where the Republicans stand on most of the major issues. Since they won’t tell you themselves, I am going to tell you.

Republicans approve of the American farmer – but they are willing to help him go broke.

They stand foursquare for the American home – but not for housing.

They are strong for labor – but they are stronger for restricting labor’s rights.

They favor a minimum wage – the smaller the minimum the better.

They endorse educational opportunity for all – but they won’t spend money for teachers or for schools.

They think modern medical care and hospital are fine – for people who can afford them.”

The post Harry Truman figured out Republicans a long time ago appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, Herman Cain informed the “Occupy Wall Street” protesters that they should not blame the banks and Wall Street, they should blame themselves if they are unemployed and in need. This reeks of Marie Antoinette’s  suggestion to the impoverished citizens of France that, if they were short of bread, they should eat cake, displaying a complete disconnect with the reality of life for the ordinary person, and recent history.

The blame game lives on

It is no surprise that Cain’s polling numbers have surged with the GOP base in the wake of this and other statements indicating a thing in this life and we should return to a “survival of the fittest” style of life. Examples of this thought process can be seen in George Bush allowing New Orleans to drown while he went around patting cronies on the back and proclaiming what a great job they were doing.

In the wake of the economic meltdown fueled by risky loans that enriched mortgage writers at the expense of middle and lower middle class people who ended up losing their homes, conservatives declared that the fault lay with the victims, who should never have believed that the opportunity to own their own homes was real in the first place.

This blame the victim mentality even carries over into the classic case of blaming the victims of rape for being raped – even when the victim is an 11 year-old girl who was gang-raped. When VP Joe Biden made this analogy, he was decried by the GOP for “stooping to that level.”

The belief system the GOP credits for their “survival of the fittest” philosophy is that of author Ayn Rand. She has been quoted by Alan Greenspan, both of the Pauls, Rush Limbaugh, and Paul Ryan, all of whom have heaped mounds of praise on her. Everyone’s favorite fictional character, Gordon Gecko of  the movie “Wall Street” could have been quoting Rand directly when he said that “greed, for lack of a better word, is good.” Rand’s philosophy listed all wealthy people as “producers” and the rest of humanity as “moochers.” This notion turned on its head the idea that people who work with their hands are the producers and those who lie in the lap of luxury drinking wine on expensive yachts and living behind huge gates in expansive mansions are an idle class that produces nothing.

Rand’s thoughts on what is admirable were first expressed early in her life through admiration for a murderer who killed and raped a teen girl. The logic was that he was “strong” and not “held back by convention.” Mental health professionals refer to this mentality as being psychopathic. In a famous interview with Mike Wallace, Rand stated that altruism was evil, and selfishness was the height of virtue, and those who starve to death are unworthy of love.

This is the philosophy of the right-wing of the GOP, which thinks that the best solution is to cut public services wherever and whenever possible, while cutting the few remaining restraints on the wealthiest and most powerful of society so that they can accumulate even more.

Fighting back by Occupy-ing

The American Autumn currently beginning via “Occupy Wall Street,” “Occupy Saint Louis,” and associated movements across the country, is a direct reaction to attempts to enrich the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. The abuses of Wall Street are just the tip of the iceberg that concerns the Occupy movements. We are already seeing politicians on the right referring to the protesters as “mobs” who are being “inflamed,” when the truth is that the police have been far more inflamed than the protesters. This reflects the concern of the corporate masters who influence the actions of the administrations involved. Although the protesters are peaceful, they have caused some property damage; the wealthy and powerful are soiling their $200 silk shorts at the thought of what might happen when the movement continues to spread. Think of all those beautiful Brooks Brothers suits being spoiled by huge sweat stains.

The growing power of the protests is directly influenced by the amount and strength of the oppression they have faced. Unfortunately for the powers that be, it is an inverse relationship, with every attempt to strong-arm it out of existence, instead strengthening the movement. The protests were nearly completely ignored until New York police maced young women participants, which immediately led to reporting of the protests, strengthening and spreading the movement. Mass arrests on the Brooklyn Bridge had much the same effect, again calling attention to the perfidy of officialdom and the peaceful reactions of protesters, which again raised awareness. As long as the protesters remain peaceful, they are likely to be able to continue to benefit from official efforts to push them around.

Call to action

So, what should we do? If you have not already done so – participate in the protests. If you are unable to directly participate, provide support materially, bring food and drink to the protesters in your area to enable them to continue.  This movement has no corporate sponsors. If you are unable to do either of those things, write letters to the editor, write to your local politicians expressing your support and demanding reform of how Wall Street operates. Demand that money be removed from the political process:  This would do more than anything to cut the corporate strings which cause our politicians to dance to the tune played by the wealthy. If not now, when?

The post Protesting the GOP’s “blame-the-victim” philosophy appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Republicans flipped twenty legislative chambers across the country in 2010 and picked up 10 governorships. Many Republicans, like Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, campaigned on the economy, promising more jobs, but having won, are racing to push through a radical conservative agenda. The country is looking for help on the economy, but state Republicans are devoting themselves to tax breaks for the rich, anti-abortion legislation, the destruction of public sector unions, and the suppression of the vote. Not exactly what the electorate bargained for.

According to the Washington Post,

Legislators have proposed 374 antiabortion bills this year, up from 174 last year. Lawmakers have introduced more than 750 bills on collective bargaining this year, with more than 500 aimed at public sector unions, a significant increase over past years, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

At least 32 states are considering new or tougher requirements for voter identification at the polls. And 3,000 bills targeting pension reform for public sector employees are in hoppers nationwide, many of them modeled after legislation proposed by the American Legislative Change Council (ALEC), a high-profile conservative think tank that helps legislatures shape fiscal policy.

In Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and other states, polls are showing that independent and moderate voters who voted Republican are having buyer’s remorse. For example, hundreds of thousands demonstrated in Madison against Walker’s attempt to destroy public sector unions, including union members who had voted for him. A recall effort scheduled for July 12 could return the Wisconsin Senate to Democratic control. And after January 2012, another recall is planned against Governor Walker himself. In Ohio, Governor John Kasich pushed to strip state union’s of their collective bargaining rights through a bill called SB 5. That bill would actually go further than the one in Wisconsin by not exempting fire and law enforcement unions from the changes. And, Kasich aims to close an $8 billion budget gap largely through cuts to government services, such as a tightening of the eligibility requirements for government-subsidized health care for children in low income families. Ohioans are upset that Kasich’s budget will most hurt the state’s poor. In Michigan, Governor Rick Snyder (R) is facing a backlash because of his controversial proposal to grant him the power to declare a financial emergency—what some are calling “financial martial law”—in a given city and appoint an emergency manager of his choosing. That manager could void union contracts and even dissolve a city government.

GOP overreach in Governor’s mansions and state houses could have an effect on national House and Senate races in those states in 2012. For example, in Wisconsin, Democratic Senator Herb Kohl is retiring and it’s not clear who is going to run for his seat—in either party—although there is a strong movement to encourage Russ Feingold to run again. But, Wisconsin voters, who are unhappy with the GOP agenda at the state and local level, may not be keen to elect a Republican. The likely Republican candidate would have been Representative Paul Ryan (WI) but it appears he has decided not to run. He has been a favorite of conservatives in WI, and a favorite of Wall Street, so he would have had plenty of money to mount a serious campaign. Then, he came up with a plan to radically restructure Medicare. Polls found that 80 percent of Americans opposed Ryan’s scheme, and angry crowds greeted the congressman in his April town hall meetings across southeast Wisconsin.

These are Democratic and moderate Republican voters who are angered by what their Republican Governor is doing in Madison and their representative is doing in Washington. Voters in Wisconsin and other states are turning against the radical GOP agenda, one that is decidedly out of touch with working families who are struggling with job loss and foreclosure. GOP overreach, at the state and local level, combined with their lack of real solutions for the economy, may just help Democrats in 2012.

The post GOP governors’ overreach may help Dems in 2012 appeared first on Occasional Planet.

This time of year is when I wrap up a series of model United Nations activities for high school and middle school students.  Through the years, I have seen hundreds of Model U.N. resolutions written by students who struggle to find ways to address the needs of the less fortunate in countries outside the U.S. At a recent model U.N. session, a whimsical thought crossed by mind: What kind of programs would today’s GOP propose for other countries and how would they fund the programs?

First a little background.  Almost without exception, the students in model UNs look for ways to address issues such as health care, education, infrastructure and clean water that face developing countries. Both high school and middle school students know that nothing comes free, so they creatively explore ways to fund programs to address social and economic needs of the less fortunate.

They take the logical approach of asking the richer countries to fund programs for the impoverished states. Suppose student-delegates propose building schools in countries with literacy rates under 50%.  A typical funding mechanism might be, “The General Assembly recommends that the ten wealthiest countries in the world (as measured by per capita income) increase their U.N. dues by 0.8% and this money be placed in a special trust fund designated for this program.”

So let’s suppose that John Boehner and Mitch McConnell were delegates to a model U.N. What would they propose?  Here’s a bare-bones resolution:

Resolution: GOP-01

Re.: Improving Education in Third-World Countries

Date: Thursday, December 09, 2010

Whereas, education is at least in theory important,

Be It Hereby Resolved That:

1.      The United Nations establish a program to educate students in developing countries.

2.      The program must focus on stabilizing global issues in such a way that it best serves American interests.

3.      The teaching of evolution shall not be permitted in any school that receives United Nations funding since the theory is flawed and illusionary.

4.      No country that attempts to share wealth among its citizens or exhibits other forms of socialist-type behavior will be eligible to receive funding for this program.

5.      The program be financed in the following fashion:

a.       The United Nations dues of the ten wealthiest countries will be reduced by 30% in order to produce “trickle-down” assets for recipient countries.

b.      The United Nations dues of the fifty poorest countries will be increased by 50% so that their governments and citizens learn the value of money and hard work.

6.      There will be no negotiating about the terms of this resolution.

Okay, this proposed resolution may include a bit of hyperbole.  But it does include basic tenets of the Republican agenda: (a) Further redistribution of wealth from the poor to the wealthy, (b) Restrictions on the discussion of ideas that are not consistent with the GOP platform, (c) an unwillingness to negotiate about anything.

Following a week in which Republicans voted to not extend unemployment benefits while continuing to discount “fair share” payments of taxes by the wealthy, the Republicans continue to act in a Scrooge-like fashion.

Progressives and moderates are not helpless to address the Republican agenda. We need to address the “What’s the Matter with Kansas” syndrome. This means that we need to help more Americans understand that they are often voting against the economic interests. We need to enlist more support from the media in presenting this picture. We need to praise reporters and outlets that accurately paint the picture.  Foremost among these is Charles Jaco of Fox2 News in St. Louis.  The station may have ‘Fox’ in its name, but it has considerable local autonomy and is attempting to accurately present the news. Adam Shriver of the St. Louis Activist Hub just posted a link to two terrific reports by Jaco regarding the impact of not extending unemployment benefits. The first report presents the overall picture in Missouri; the second humanizes the impact on unemployed individuals.

Third world countries took oppression only so long and then threw off the yoke of colonialism. As Robert Reich and others have said, America is becoming, more and more, a country of two classes: the “haves” and the “have nots.”

All is not lost. We have a Democratic president, albeit one who needs help in identifying his true friends. The new Senate will still have a majority of Democrats. And while Nancy Pelosi will be House Minority Leader in the 112^th Congress, she will remain as possibly the savviest politician on Capitol Hill.

Republicans have been successful in framing both their own identity and that of the Democrats. We need to become much more effective in framing both our own identity and that of the Republicans. So while the resolution above may be just a bit facetious, it may help us have a better idea of how the GOP would look to a different audience. If we are to keep hope alive, it must come from within each and every one of us.

The post A Model-UN resolution from a “country” called GOP appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Not too many years ago, General Motors tried to sell their Oldsmobile brand (nee 1897) to a younger generation.  The slogan was “this is not your father’s Oldsmobile.”  In other words, Oldsmobile was not designed for elderly suburbanites who drove to the country club and discarded their cars after a couple of years.  Eventually, most wound up in the hands of  poor people who sometimes souped them up.  The “new Oldsmobile” was supposed to be a “hip car” for a “hip generation” and stay fashionable forever.  It croaked on April 29, 2004.

One of the good things about the “good old days” of dad’s Oldsmobile was that that their Republican party earned credit for participating in the advancement of civil rights,  as well as basic civility in our political process.  Young people who wonder what the Republican Party was like before it became the “party of no” may recall learning about Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower.

Actually, the Republican and Democratic parties collaborated quite a bit well into the 20^th century.  They had to, because both parties were populated by both liberals and conservatives.  Republicans and Democrats crossed party lines to advance their causes.

Arthur Vandenberg was a Republican senator from Michigan who opposed most of FDR’s New Deal.  On foreign policy he was largely an isolationist up until World War II.  Then he saw the need for international collaboration.  On January 10, 1945, he delivered a celebrated “speech heard round the world” in the Senate chamber, publicly announcing his conversion from isolationism to internationalism.  In 1964, Illinois Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen joined with President Lyndon Johnson to pass a landmark civil rights bill.  Johnson had the burden of twenty-two Democrats (so-called Dixiecrats) representing the eleven states of the old Confederacy.  He was not going to get any of their votes.  When the actual vote took place on June 19, 1964, 66% of Democrats voted for it.  But that amounted to only 44 votes.  The Republicans put national interest ahead of partisan politics and actually beat the Democrats at their own game, with a whopping 82% of their 33 members voting for the bill.

Ironically, the bill passed only a month before the GOP nominated highly conservative Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona for president.  While Johnson soundly defeated him in November of 1964, Johnson predicted that this election would be the beginning of the end of Democratic dominance of the southern states.  He was right: Now eighteen of the twenty-two seats from the old Confederacy are occupied by Republicans.  This is not “your father’s (or grandfather’s)  GOP.  In 1964 Republicans joined Democrats in saying ‘yes.’  This was just about the time that the James Bond movie, “Dr. No” came out, and that seems to have become the mantra of the Republicans in recent years.

When we hear Republicans now claiming that the Democrats are not interested in bi-partisan cooperation, they are simply forgetting the history of the last half century.  The parties used to be amalgams of individuals seeking office, and the leaders of each party had to be especially skillful in fashioning majorities.  The battles were not so much based on party identification as they were issue oriented.  Unfortunately, many in today’s Republican Party have discarded real interest in issues in favor of promoting partisan polarity and demonizing the Democrats.  This is easy to do when your agenda essentially consists of obstructing.

While some Americans prefer a government agenda of doing nothing, most want services provided to them that promote their personal welfare as well as that of their family members, friends, and society as a whole.  This requires robust government action that not only follows people’s needs, but anticipates them in advance.  Your father’s Republican party clearly had members who could do that; the present party is like the dads who become “grumpy old men.”

We welcome a Republican Party that wants to participate in the solutions to today’s and tomorrow’s problems.  But first it has to go through a self-examination and cleansing process.  Democrats: Please be respectful to Republicans who are looking for opportunities to help.  As for the others who have little interest in governance, then govern without them.  This will be good for the Democratic Party, ultimately for the Republican Party, and most importantly for the American people and other citizens of the world.

The post Not your father’s GOP appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The ability to sell a contradiction is sometimes the measure of a man or woman, at least when it comes to success in politics.  But nowhere does such artifice cry out for our attention more than when displayed by candidates for our highest elected offices.  The habit of disassociating what one says from what one does has turned our electoral process into a game of rope a dope.  And too often, when the dust of election season settles into the daily grind of lawmaking, the voters are no longer interested enough to hold politicians accountable when their actions fall short or simply diverge from their rhetoric.

This is not simply a matter of broken campaign promises that waft just out of our reach like suspended election night confetti.  Many of today’s politicians are adept at assigning certain aspirational characteristics to themselves or their party that just don’t ring true when compared with the public record of accomplishment or incompetence and everything in between.  A third variation on the theme is the art of condemning the behavior of one’s opposition while shamelessly indulging in the same conduct.  All of these behaviors are duplicitous and none should go without challenge when they are acted out by those holding the public trust.

For a recent example of Alice Through the Looking-Glass logic in political discourse, take Minnesota Governor and probable 2012 presidential contender Tim Pawlenty’s recent excoriation of President Obama to stop making apology tours.  The timing of the remark suggested it was in response to the President’s efforts to right the course of a domestic agenda that had been tossed too long and hard on the tide of an intractable healthcare debate and to refocus on the priorities of unemployment and economic growth.  Governor Pawlenty and others on the right are in no mood for being patient.

But, as it turns out, the Governor is infinitely more gracious in handling the remorseful utterances of his GOP colleagues who are still reeling from the reversal of fortune they suffered in 2008.  Lately, when asked whether Republicans should still be trusted with the mantle of fiscal conservatism, even as the nation struggles to put its financial house in order after the Republicans sponsored eight years of Fat Tuesday on Wall Street, Pawlenty offers up the results of an apology tour of his own.  According to the Governor, he’s met with GOP leaders around the country who all say that they have learned their lesson on excessive spending and won’t do it again if given the chance.  A caravan of contrition is far better than an apology tour.

While it remains to be seen whether voters will be as quick to forgive as Pawlenty’s group of apologists hope, there are plenty of men and women still in the ranks of incumbency that seem to be enjoying unearned good will.  While Congress’s favorable ratings indicate almost universal distaste for the legislature as a whole, nearly all Congressmen and Senators fare much better as individual representatives.  Among other privileges of office that help cultivate good will at home are well timed victory laps through the home state or district bearing goodies from the Washington.

But beware the contradiction.  For a case in point, we in Missouri need look no further than across the Mississippi where Republican Congressman Aaron Schock of Illinois, 27, enjoys the spotlight as our nation’s youngest legislator.  As the freshest face in the minority party and potential thorn in the side of our President from the same state, Congressman Schock has been favored with an abundance of committee appointments to which he would not otherwise be entitled under the rules of seniority and has been named Deputy Minority Whip.

As further evidence of his party’s favor, Congressman Schock was trotted out on Valentine’s Day for an appearance on Meet the Press. In discussing his resistance to the current healthcare reform plan, Schock explained he was representing the views of the majority of Americans.  While the statement was seemingly excused as so much partisan puffery, moments later his co-panelist Rachel Maddow called the Congressman out on the two faces he wears when it comes to pork barrel spending.  Seems Congressman Schock’s Washington beltway persona had voted against a stimulus bill on grounds it contained too much earmarked spending, while populist Congressman Schock ran back to Illinois to celebrate the award of a green technology research grant made possible by the bill he’d just voted against.  The fact that the public display of largesse occurred on a community college campus may have permitted it to fly under the radar of cynicism in the short run, but Maddow was not going to let such rank hypocrisy lie.  First he decried such spending as imposing long term debt to be paid in perpetuity by his constituents and their kids, then he followed the trail of stimulus funds right back home to get his picture taken without red ink on his hands.

It is critical that voters remain engaged throughout the processes by which we are governed and not just the processes by which we choose who will do it.  For even the most earnestly intentioned voters, elections can become an empty exercise when we pay too little attention to the words, actions and votes of our Congressmen and Senators in between elections.  As much as possible, we should use technology to follow our representatives to the Capitol so that we can talk to each other and to them about how well or how poorly they are honoring the public trust of their constituents.  A couple of excellent resources are http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/ and http://votesmart.org/ There you can check the voting records of your Congressmen and Senators and see how well their votes reflect opinion at home among constituents and how well they match statements or actions of the representatives in the public record.  We can’t afford to continue letting contradiction be a commodity that is sold to voters in order to get to Washington and then traded there at our expense.

The post We all live in glass houses but some don’t realize it appeared first on Occasional Planet.