I Cannot Find Words to Describe This

I literally had to pause the video several times in order to face-palm myself.

He Won; There, I Said It

Okay. Scott Brown won. He won fair and square. He has taken the seat that was once held by John F. Kennedy and Edward Kennedy will be taken up by a Republican.

On November 4, 2008, I saw friends writing "America is doomed" and "I'm moving to <fill in country>." I really cannot stand sore winners or sore losers. In regards to this, I wrote a Facebook note, calling their bluff. They thought the country would die under Obama and wanted to leave; I told them "bye-bye." I knew they wouldn't leave. Eight years prior, Democrats said the same thing about a Bush-Cheney win; and, yet, the country has survived.

This evening, I have seen tweets showing the other side of the coin that I hate: sore winners. I have seen people saying "Obama fail" "Suck it <fill in Democratic politician>." Some tweets have actually been directed at yours truly.

He won. For all of my efforts (and those of countless others), Scott Brown beat Martha Coakley. He did it, I admit.

However, I am reminded of the closing scene of Hillary Rodham Clinton's memoir Loving History. She went through Inauguration Day 2001 and how, one of the things she admired most about this nation. I do too. Over a year ago, Americans wanted a change in direction, so they elected Obama; now, they didn't like what has happened and wanted a reform. The voice of the American public is a voice to be rekoned with. If they don't like the direction of the nation, they make a change in however they can. They change mayors. They change state legislators. They change congressmen. They change presidents. They make a change. And that was what they did.

To my friends who supported Scott Brown, I commend you. You guys ran a fantastic campaign. You went from 20 points below to winning by 6-7 points.

One election, though, does not cause a 180-degree shift in policy in the nation. Look at what happened in President Obama's first 100 days (when he did NOT have 60 votes in the Senate): we have the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, re-authorization of SCHIP (paid for by an increased tax on cigarettes), hate crimes now include sexual orientation/gender/gender identity/disability, HIV/AIDS is no longer a reason to exclude immigrants, and expanded AmeriCorps.

Yet, to those Brown-supporting friends, please do not say that all of the changes that were requested in 2008 are over. Yes, the Democrats no longer have a filibuster-proof majority, but are those 8 senators suddenly chopped liver? No. There is still plenty of bipartisan legislation that can be passed. And, if anyone has been following my tweets, according to Massachusetts election law, they cannot certify an election until at least 10 (if not 15) days after an election (see http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=why_massachusetts_doesnt_matter. So, there are 1-2 weeks for health care reform to be passed.

As I type, I am watching one of my favorite West Wing episodes, "2162 Votes." The final line of the episode is said by Republican Presidential Nominee Sen. Arnold Vinick (CA), after the end of the Democratic National Convention, "Okay, let's go win this thing."

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) has said that the 'conference committee' was "95% done" with hashing out the House and Senate bills on health care reform. We have a maximum of 15 days to pass this thing without any political controversy. Therefore, Okay, let's go pass this thing.

But, after Sen.-elect Brown is sworn in, I pray that he will be there, putting in his 2 cents, and assisting in making strong, bipartisan legislation for which his predecessor was infamous.

Polling Data

I had an interesting conversation with a Republican friend today. He mentioned about how President Obama has the lowest approval rating for the first year of a presidency in American history. I thought for a moment and came to an epiphany on why this is.

It has been said that a President can only achieve his/her goals in the first 100 days. For the next 8 months, if the agenda runs over, poll numbers begin to fall. After the first year of a presidency, 435 members of congress and 33 senators are running for re-election. Voters have a short-term memory (unless there is a major scandal). If the elected official in question has gone on the record with a controversial vote, he/she may be toast. They have to appease their constituencies within those 11 months. The next two years are dicey depending on the outcome. But, whatever the case, since the President is the figurative and literal head of the party, if the party and/or the President mess something up, both take the heat.

Now, it goes without saying that the health care bill has been one of the most contentious issues in the past century. The President began to push health care reform in the late spring. It's January now. It has taken 6 months. The lack of efficiency led to less support (and its ability to, hence, fester) has caused Democratic members of Congress and the President to in polling numbers.

Though I am not an expert, it seems that since 'Rome wasn't built in a day,' the Democratic party has taken the heat in support.

How's This for Excessive Spending?

As I am sure we all heard, there was a major tea party in D.C. this past weekend. The protesters complain about taxation and spending. They hate the Stimulus Package. They hate the health care bill. They hate foreign aid. They hate progressive taxes.

They also hate excessive government bureaucracy. I have one piece of excessive spending and government bureaucracy that no one has ever mentioned.

Next time you are hanging out in Downtown D.C., walk to the Department of Agriculture, then walk to the Department of Commerce, then Labor, and continue walking around to all of the cabinet-level departments that everyone forgets. Then, to finish it off, head to the Capitol. You will notice that each bureau has its own police force. I understand that each government office should have some security, but its own police force?

First off, I am curious to know who has the jurisdiction to prosecute someone who the, say Capitol police, arrest.

I do not know why there is a need for this much bureaucracy and excessive spending. But, however, our friends on the Right have never mentioned this. They seem to care more about social spending

Here is my solution to the police force issue: The President nominates a Governmental Police Commissioner that shall be in charge of all police forces within the government (with the exception of special cases such as Military Police forces and the Secret Service) and a joint committee of the House and Senate confirm. The Police Commissioner, then, appoints police chiefs for each department (i.e. Agriculture Department Police Chief). Those Chiefs, then, manage all of the police that are stationed in that department.

My plan gives a direct chain of command and provides necessary resources to other bureaus when needed (like when other police precincts are called to a scene). If there is a fault with my plan, please comment.

Let's see what the so-dubbed 'teabaggers' have to say about this.