Monday, September 3, 2018

Slow Learners: Save Democracy; Heed The Warnings

Slow Learners: Save Democracy; Heed The Warnings

A long time ago, while I was purchasing a fifth of Southern Comfort, I had a convenience store attendant tell me I was a "slow learner" after I told him I was celebrating my third marriage. Yeah, I'll have to admit it did take me three times and about 25 years to finally get it right, so I guess the guy was accurate with his quick-witted comment.

But, hey, my cognitive abilities are like genius level compared to those of Republican and Democratic political leaders throughout the 200-plus years of the American democracy. Yes, I know it wasn't always Republicans and Democrats, but let's just keep it simple for now.

Despite all that this country has accomplished over the years, we still can't seem to get this governing thing on an even keel. It all boils down to this Party stuff -- 2 parties mostly -- Republicans and Democrats. We could be so much better, accomplish so much more and build an even greater country.

There's nothing in the Constitution about Parties. In fact, the Founders and early leaders specifically warned us of how evil they are and told us not to let them take hold. 

Way back, 238 years ago, John Adams, the man who would become our second President, warned in a letter to Jonathan Jackson on October 2, 1780:

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our constitution." [Note: Not the U.S. Constitution, which did not exist then, but the principles, that constituted us as a nation and a people.] 

Fifteen years later, President George Washington, in a letter to Timothy Pickering, July 27, 1795, warned:

"Much indeed to be regretted, party disputes are now carried to such a length, and truth is so enveloped in mist and false representation, that it is extremely difficult to know through what channel to seek it. This difficulty to one, who is of no party, and whose sole wish is to pursue with undeviating steps a path which would lead this country to respectability, wealth, and happiness, is exceedingly to be lamented. But such, for wise purposes, it is presumed, is the turbulence of human passions in party disputes, when victory more than truth is the palm contended for."

Then again, with an uncanny eye far into the future, Washington detailed his concerns in his farewell address to the then fledgling country on September 19, 1796: 

". . .I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

"This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. . ."

Twelve years later, following the turn of the century, Thomas Jefferson, indicated to James Monroe, in March 1808:

"You will soon find that so inveterate is the rancor of party spirit among us, that nothing ought to be credited but what we hear with our own ears. If you are less on your guard than we are here, at this moment, the designs of the mischief-makers will not fail to be accomplished, and brethren and friends will be made strangers and enemies to each other."

There were many other similar warnings back in the day from our esteemed forefathers Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin and others throughout the years. Dwight D. Eisenhower, issued a rather ominous warning in a speech on March 6, 1956: 

"
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power."

So, we were warned way back when and we have been warned more recently about the dangers of political parties, their divisive nature and their potential negative effects on good government. With all the warnings, why didn't we learn? Despite the warnings from early governmental leaders, and without any direction from the Constitution itself Party politics took off immediately. Over the years they have become entrenched within our government and intricately woven into the fabric of American politics. As Washington said, "This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind.”

It would seem that Party politics is so engrained in our governmental system that we wouldn't know how to operate without it, and perhaps wouldn't want to. But even so, shouldn't we be mindful of the underpinnings of all those warnings? They were made originally by the Founders in good faith and with reason. It seems we may have lost sight of why the warnings were issued in the first place.

·         a division of the republic 
·         confused truth and false representation
·         difficulty in knowing where to seek truth
·         turbulence of human passions in party disputes
·         victory more than truth is the prize
·         geographical discriminations 
·         alternate domination of one faction over another
·         the spirit of revenge
·         common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party
·         the rancor of party spirit among us
·         brethren and friends made strangers and enemies to each other
·         potential for conspiracy to seize power

Unfortunately all of these insights and warnings are a growing part of American political party politics. We have agonized for decades over Congressional gridlock, the increasing tribal partisanship and the failure to deal with the pressing issues of the day -- health care; immigration; racial & ethnic equality; infrastructure; climate change; education; gun control; trade; cyber security; international affairs and much more.

Why can't our political leaders heed the centuries-old warnings and understand that the system they're working in is designed for failure? The unfettered lust for power and greed must end. Instead of making it better they're making it worse with increased partisan divide. Abuse of the filibuster; gridlock gimmicks like the Hastert "rule" (majority of the majority rule); and the increasing trend of avoiding the committee process ("regular order") in favor of limited input, leadership-developed legislative proposals.

And the warnings continue; this time from one of the last great statesmen and patriots of our time, Senator John McCain, in his own personal farewell to Americans and the country, read by his spokesman, Rick Davis on August 27, 2018:

“We weaken our greatness when we confuse our patriotism with tribal rivalries that have sown resentment and hatred and violence in all the corners of the globe. We weaken it when we hide behind walls, rather than tear them down, when we doubt the power of our ideals, rather than trust them to be the great force for change they have always been.

“We are three-hundred-and-twenty-five million opinionated, vociferous individuals. We argue and compete and sometimes even vilify each other in our raucous public debates. But we have always had so much more in common with each other than in disagreement. If only we remember that and give each other the benefit of the presumption that we all love our country we will get through these challenging times. We will come through them stronger than before. We always do. . .

“Do not despair of our present difficulties but believe always in the promise and greatness of America, because nothing is inevitable here. Americans never quit. We never surrender. We never hide from history. We make history.”

Most recently, on September 1, 2018, former Senator Joe Liberman, delivering a eulogy at John McCain's funeral said John's deciding vote, 
which defeated an ill-conceived health care bill was:

"not really against that bill but against the mindless partisanship that has taken control of both our political parties and our government and produced totally one sided responses to complicated national problems like health care. And of course he was right."

On the same day, former President Barack Obama delivering his eulogy for McCain, highlighted that:

"John believed in honest argument and hearing our views. He understood that if we get in the habit of bending the truth to suit political expediency or party orthodoxy, our democracy will not work."

So again we are warned. It is important to emphasize what Obama said about "bending the truth "; "political expediency"; and "party orthodoxy". If this practice, which has become increasingly and distrubingly the new normal is not changed -- "Democracy Will Not Work."

As a country, as a people, as political parties and as a government we have sunk to a pitiful, shameful and disgraceful level; and we are ever so close to permanently breaking our democracy. We have “thumbed our noses” at the thoughtful patriots of our past and present.

And yet the problems are obvious and the solution is clear. All we need to do is have the will to change; the will to do better; the will to make a correction in our dangerous path; the will to heed the warnings of our forefathers and the will to listen to most Americans who are pleading for Congress to end the dysfunction and do a better job of governing.

We simply need to end, once and for all, the political theory and practice that allows one party, which ever is the "majority" at any given point in time, to completely control the legislative actions of the House and Senate. It is absurd to allow this practice to continue when it is known at the start that the results will be disastrous.

We continue to attempt to solve highly complex societal and economic issues with one-sided legislative solutions put forth by the Party in power, which reflects the ideas and concepts of roughly one-half of the population, and attempt to pass them with the very narrowest of margins. Fortunately, for lack of one vote an ill-conceived healh care bill was not passed. A tax cut bill, affecting millions, with many flaws was passed with a 51-48 vote. 

Critical judicial and executive appointments are made by the Party in power at the time, generally based on political orientation, rather than qualifications of skills, integrity and experience. 

The critical function of executive office oversight is either overlooked completely or obsessively scrutinized depending on which Party is in "power."

If we are going to continue to operate with a two-party political system, with the expectation that our democracy will survive, we must end the practice that Party in power, however narrow the margins, completely controls the critical functions of Congress -- legislation, appropriations, appointment, executive oversight, treaties, commerce, and international affairs.

I have continuously put forward the concept of shared legislative power (SLP) and have explained how it might work and offered examples of where it has worked with great success. 

I'm sure there are other ideas and proposals that might attempt to achieve similar results. The point is that we can't continue going down the same path. We must heed the warnings and change the way we operate and act if we are to save the democracy.

Joe Biden, former Vice President and Senate colleague of John McCain, and a statesman in his own right, captured the spirit we need moving forward in the opening line of his eulogy when he said:

“My name is Joe Biden. I’m a Democrat. And I loved John McCain."


For further details and insights on SLP see my previous postings which include:




###

#BetterGovmt

#PartyOverCountry

#CountryOverParty

#ReformCongress

#Congress

#GOP

#DEMS

Monday, June 4, 2018

Ethics & The Way Congress Operates

Ethics & The Way Congress Operates

The U.S. House & Senate Committees on Ethics, are unique. They are the only standing committees whose membership is evenly divided between each political party no matter which party is in control. 

Also, unlike other committees, the day-to-day work of the Committees on Ethics is conducted by a staff that is nonpartisan by rule. 

For example, the House Ethics Committee rules provide that: “The staff is to be assembled and retained as a professional, nonpartisan staff. . . The staff as a whole and each individual member of the staff shall perform all official duties in a nonpartisan manner. . . No member of the staff shall engage in any partisan political activity directly affecting any congressional or presidential election. . .” The Senate Ethics Committee rules contain similar provisions.


It would seem reasonable to assume that Congressional members instituted the equal party membership and nonpartisan staff requirements because they wanted the "ethics" decisions to be above reproach, infallible, and uncontested politically -- truly "country over party" decisions.

That's not a bad operation model for decision making overall; particularly in today's highly charged, tribalistic political environment.

What if we applied this operational model to all Congressional committees? There's nothing in the Constitution to prohibit it. Congress is free to establish its own rules of operation and that's what has lead to the current system of total Party control, gridlock, dysfunction and bad or no decisions on critically important issues.

In a country where the public is, for all practical purposes, divided between two ideological perspectives, how much sense does it make to continue to formulate policy and make decisions based on only one perspective? One-sided solutions to complex problems don't work and only result in more divisive gridlock and dysfunction and perpetuate revenge politics when party power changes. How can this be good for the economy and business which require consistency and predictability to enable planning and investment in the future.

One-sided decision making in marriage results in divorce. One-sided decision making by Congress results in political chaos which neuters the most significant branch of U.S. government.

Shouldn't Congress be making laws and providing Executive branch oversight based on truth and a common set of facts if it is to have any credibility and respect by the general public? Isn't that what most Americans want?

The operational model presented by the House and Senate Ethics Committees applied to the nearly 200 committees and subcommittees in Congress could lead to vastly improved political decisions that could earn the respect of the American public. Bills, reports or oversight reviews that eventually advanced to the Floor of the Chambers would have been subjected to extensive, unbiased, bipartisan investigation, research and input resulting in many vested agreements and compromises along the way. 

Arriving on the Floor such bills and decisions would have a core group of Republican and Democratic members that would argue and support the final decisions for passage because of their vested interests. It seems possible that such bipartisan support could actually overcome some of the artificially imposed impediments that currently block movement on many decision such as the so-called "Hastert Rule" (majority of the majority) in the House and the filibuster and "holds" in the Senate.

Critics of altering the committee process may claim it will result in deadlock and stalemate, yet one must ask, what has the current process resulted in? In actuality, the process has been tested at the Federal and State levels with surprising and even amazing success (See my blog post: https://goo.gl/RgdtDz). It must also be noted that the House and Senate Ethics Committees have an operational history extending over decades.

Consider these statements, for example, from Republican and Democratic legislators who actually participated in a shared power legislative environment in Michigan: 

John Gernaat (R-Cadillac) – “Shared power will go down in history as an example of how people on both sides can work together to get things done.” 

Ilona Varga (D-Detroit) – “Both sides had to compromise. I feel the people got the best two years of representation in the over eight years I have been there.”

Michael J. Griffin (D-Jackson) – “…people of goodwill and determination can put public policy ahead of partisan consideration. . . Students of government, civics, political science, et cetera, can learn a great deal from this experience.”

Carl F. Gnodtke (R-Sawyer) – “I have often thought it worked well enough that there should be a constitutional amendment requiring equal numbers from both parties be elected to serve in the House.” 

(See many more legislator comments in my blog post https://goo.gl/RgdtDz) 

Sure there will be stalemates along the way, but compare that to what we have now. One-sided solutions (and even that is rare) to complex problems based on wishful thinking, shallow promises, alternative realities and fake facts. Under a shared legislative power (SLP) arrangement, eventually a few good members who put country before party will step up and break the stalemate with compromised solutions that the majority on both sides can support and that will likely stand the test of time.

For further details and insights on SLP see my previous postings which include:

SLP: The Only Hope For "Country Over Party" (https://goo.gl/GSLfgh) May 21, 2018)
Shared Committee Power And The Ambience of Bipartisanship (https://goo.gl/RgdtDz), March 22, 2017
Shared Committee Power: How Crazy Is It? (https://goo.gl/wvpIUG), March 14, 2017  
Beating The Dead Horse Of Bipartisanship (goo.gl/qy00fX), February 1, 2017
Congress Could Be Functional; If It Wanted To (goo.gl/JlB5zu), January 18, 2017
Bipartisanship: How The GOP Could Heal A Divided Nation (goo.gl/yU3zjB), December 23, 2016

###

#BetterGovmt

#PartyOverCountry
#CountryOverParty

#ReformCongress

#Congress

#GOP

#DEMS

Monday, May 21, 2018

SLP: The Only Hope For "Country Over Party"

SLP: The Only Hope For "Country Over Party"

I used to write about “Shared Legislative Power” (SLP) as an innovative concept and an alternative idea to address the issues around gridlock within government and Congress specifically. I will summarize the SLP concept and provide further insight below.

There was a time when Congress was civil enough and functional enough to work across the aisle. Today, as a country, we have moved beyond that point. In today's highly charged, tribal politics environment, I now believe that SLP, which would force saner minds to work together to solve problems, is one of the few viable options to save the very democratic underpinnings of our Democracy. It is my belief that we are dangerously close to slipping into a near autocratic state mostly because of the complete failure of Congress to function in its critically important oversight and lawmaking duties.

From my perspective political and Congressional decorum began to seriously deteriorate with the contentious election of George W. Bush over Al Gore. It accelerated rapidly following the election of Barak Obama with the immediate Republican strategy hatched the night of the Obama inauguration when top Republican lawmakers and strategists were conjuring up ways to submarine his presidency at a private dinner in Washington. From that point on, through the “Birther” debacle, the Presidential campaign of 2016 and the first year of the Trump Presidency American politics have reached a new low.

It is also important to note that this breakdown in political decorum corresponds closely with the development of the Internet, cable news, email, social media and the way Americans communicate and interact with each other and receive information.

The Tillerson Challenge

I’m not a fan of Rex Tillerson, the former Exxon CEO and U.S. Secretary of State. But, no matter what you think of him, what your politics are, or whether you think he was sincere in his remarks, Mr. Tillerson released some powerful words and thoughts at this year’s (May 2018) commencement exercises at the Virginia Military Institute. He said in part:

“As I reflect upon the state of our American democracy, I observe a growing crisis in ethics and integrity. . .

"An essential tenant of a free society, a free people, is access to the truth. A government structure and a societal understanding that freedom to seek the truth is the very essence of freedom itself. [Quoting from the Bible at John 8:32]. You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.

“It is only by fierce defense of the truth and a common set of facts, that we create the conditions for a democratic, free society comprised of richly diverse people, that those free people can explore and fin[d] solutions to the very challenges confronting a complex society of free people. If our leaders seek to conceal the truth, or we as people become accepting of alternative realities that are no long[er] grounded in facts, then we as American citizens are on a pathway to relinquishing our freedom.

“This is the life of non-democratic societies, filled with people who are not free to seek the truth. We know them well. Societies in Russia, China, Iran, North Korea. You can complete the list.

“A responsibility of every American citizen to each other is to preserve and protect our freedom by recognizing what truth is and is not, what a fact is and is not, and begin by holding ourselves accountable to truthfulness, and demand our pursuit of America's future be fact-based -- not based on wishful thinking, not hoped-for outcomes made in shallow promises, but with a clear-eyed view of the facts as they are guided by the truth that will set us free to seek solutions to our most daunting challenges.

It is also that foundational commitment to truth and facts that binds us to other democratic, like-minded nations, that we Americans will always deal with them from the same set of truths and facts and it is truth that says to our adversaries, 'we say what we mean and we mean what we say.' When we as people, a free people, go wobbly on the truth, even on what may see[m] the most trivial of matters, we go wobbly on America. . ."

Dangerous Decision-making

Tillerson’s remarks strike at the heart of the issues surrounding sound decision making today – i.e. basing decisions on “truth and a common set of facts. . . truth that will set us free to seek solutions to our most daunting challenges. . . not based on wishful thinking, not hoped-for outcomes.”

Tillerson’s words identify the problems and set the goal that most of us would aspire to, but ask yourself if you can see our existing governmental and political systems being capable of producing such results – real solutions to our most daunting challenges and the major issues of our time.

We have three branches of government, all involved in major decision making and none of them really produce results based on truth and a common set of facts. The judicial branch comes the closest, but the use of competing “expert” witnesses that can be bought and sold can leave judges and juries confused and unsure. Usually the truth and facts win out and of course, decisions can be appealed and argued through multiple levels of our overall court and legal system.

The Executive Branch, led by a President, of course professes to make decisions based on truth and facts, but they are one-sided. The President, elected by the states, with input from the people, is generally thought to represent the will of the country at a particular point in time. But, the decision making by the President is one-sided based on Party agenda, specific ideas, philosophies, beliefs, etc. Decisions or actions by the Executive Office should be thought of as one side of a legal argument with the President representing the ideas put forth by the states, people and Party that elected him/her. Obviously, there is always another side.

Finally, we must look at Congress, the House and the Senate, truly elected directly by the people and with a significant responsibility to make laws and provide oversight of the Executive branch. We must ask the same questions regarding Congressional decisions – are they based on truth and a common set of facts? Being objective and disregarding which Party is in control of either or both Congressional chambers, I have a hard time believing that very many people could actually claim that Congressional decisions are based on truth and a common set of facts?

While most would agree that Congressional decisions are not based on truth and a common set of facts, we have to think about the Tillerson challenge and ask ourselves why is this true? Shouldn’t we be ashamed? If Congress is making laws and providing Executive branch oversight based on something less than truth and a common set of facts how can it expect the general public to have any respect for its decisions or authority.

The fact is there is very little respect. Current Congressional rules and procedures are actually designed to distort truth and facts to fit a particular party agenda or philosophy of whoever is in control at the time. The Parties leaderships, over time, have manipulated the rules and procedures of Congress to give the Party in control, no matter how narrow the margin, complete control over the Executive branch oversight and the development of “solutions to our most daunting challenges” -- all based on a one-sided assessment of truth and facts. Somewhat like a court proceeding with only one side represented by legal counsel.

The existing system provides no viable power to the minority to challenge the facts and data of decisions other than blocking tactics such as leaking media counter information to increase exposure or utilizing misguided legislative rules and procedures to encourage delay and gridlock which only perpetuates revenge politics when party power changes. The minority party is basically prohibited from participating in the proposal development and presenting competing data, facts and information. Even when such information is presented it can be summarily dismissed.

To the contrary, legislators and their partisan staff, spend much of their time implementing strategies to oppose competing arguments – e.g. finding experts with opposing points of view; discrediting counter positions; defaming other legislators; leaking false or discrediting media reports.

We have lost the art of critical thinking, debate and compromise in problem solving. Congress has started making decisions based on lies and fake (sometime called alternative) facts that go unchecked or challenged.

There are those that argue that the other side is so wrong and so off base that there can be no compromise or working together to solve problems. But if we truly adopt that position we should divide up the country and move to our respective corners and operate under our own philosophies and beliefs – not a very realistic alternative. There will always be a significant “other side.” As Americans we must find a way to work together, live together, and make decisions together.

Why should we continue down the path of gridlock in addressing and solving the major problems of our time or continuing to propose one-sided solution to complex problems that will be overturned in the next change of political power? Not to mention the fact that our inability to make consistent, long term decisions based on truth and common facts has seriously weakened our international reputation, standing and credibility.

As the U.S. dawdles in its self-made chaos of leadership and failure in decision making, our international competitors and allies are hastening their advancement in economic development, technology, and infrastructure in the vacuum we leave behind.

Making Congress Work With SLP

How do we ever break the cycle of revenge politics and get back to solving problems with truth and a common set of facts? It’s unlikely that Congress is going to address this problem on its own. Somehow it has to be forced to consider alternatives by the people or some external force. This is the Great Dilemma -- the solution – SLP -- is at hand; the problem is how do we get there?

In previous posts on SLP I have suggested that the House and Senate committee system which gives overriding power to the majority party is the Achilles' heel, the linchpin of Congressional dysfunction and is completely self imposed by operating procedures of the House and Senate.

The concept of SLP is simple, but it’s political and procedural impacts in Congress would be enormous. SLP simply would call for Congressional actions to follow so-called “regular order” initiated through the House and Senate Subcommittee and Committee system and ending up with a Floor vote of the entire membership.

The major difference from existing procedures is that the House and Senate committee system would be altered to include equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats on each committee with Co-chairs in charge. There are some 200 committees and subcommittees in the House and Senate – 21 major committees in each house and approximately 150 Subcommittees between the two chambers.

Two existing committees in Congress already operate under a shared power arrangement; so the concept is not unique or without procedural precedent. The House and Senate Ethics Committees are charged with carrying out their responsibilities in an impartial manner. Additionally, on one rare occasion the U.S. Senate operated under a shared power arrangement for several months and the Michigan state House of Representatives operated under SLP for an entire term. Both resulted in amazingly successful and surprising results.

The rules for the ethics committees require that “the staff is to be assembled and retained as a professional, nonpartisan staff. . . The staff as a whole and each individual member of the staff shall perform all official duties in a nonpartisan manner. . . No member of the staff shall engage in any partisan political activity directly affecting any congressional or presidential election. . .”

This one change would completely alter the outcomes of legislative development and oversight responsibilities and would begin to meet the Tillerson Challenge of basing decisions on “truth and a common set of facts. . .

When a bill, action or decision was approved through the Subcommittee/Committee process it would be considered as usual on the Floor of the Chamber. In the House, I would recommend that the Hastert rule be eliminated. That Republican “rule” requires that a majority of the Majority Party approve an action before it may be considered by the full House. In both Chambers, I would recommend that no riders or unrelated amendments be permitted for consideration. Members could offer and debate individual related amendments; however they would likely need some overwhelming information or evidence to support their position to obtain approval over the committee support constituency.

Additionally, there would have to be agreement that all legislation and oversight functions would strictly adhere to the subcommittee - committee process. Too often, under recent leaderships, even the existing committee process has been bypassed and replaced with a leadership proposal or some “special” legislative group proposal. Recent examples of the altered process include the GOP’s consideration of a health care bill and its consideration of its final tax cut proposal.

Assuming adherence to the committee process, I think normal House and Senate rules could apply. I would envision that the House and Senate would still be controlled by their Majority parties based on the numbers of elected members. There would likely need to be some alterations over time following experience with the new process.

The major difference would be that proposals reaching the House or Senate Floor would have survived a grueling process of research, investigation, agreed to facts and data, unbiased staff analysis, equal and fair expert testimony from all sides of the issue, media scrutiny and extensive public input and exposure. Additionally there would be a bipartisan core constituency of subcommittee and committee Members that would have previously debated the issues and agreed to acceptable compromises. This constituency would most likely have a vested interest in defending the measure against hostile amendments and seeing the action approved by the full chamber.

Sure there will be stalemates along the way, but compare that to what we have now. One-sided solutions (and even that is rare) to complex problems based on wishful thinking, shallow promises, alternative realities and fake facts. Under SLP, eventually a few good members who put country before party will step up and break the stalemate with compromised solutions that the majority on both sides can support and that will likely stand the test of time.

For further details and insights on SLP see my previous postings which include:


 
Beating The Dead Horse Of Bipartisanship
 (goo.gl/qy00fX), February 1, 2017

Congress Could Be Functional; If It Wanted To (goo.gl/JlB5zu), January 18, 2017

Bipartisanship: How The GOP Could Heal A Divided Nation (goo.gl/yU3zjB), December 23, 2016

###
#BetterGovmt
#PartyOverCountry
#ReformCongress
#Congress
#GOP
#DEMS



Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Vodka Slammers All Around; Mission Accomplished

"Hey Boris, Vodka Slammers All Around; Mission Accomplished. These Americans are so, how do you say it. . . vul·ner·a·ble. We need not spend money on that military crap when it's so easy this way. . . Давайте выпьем за успех нашего дела!" 
[Note: The above quote is meant to be a joke. The following quote is real. Taken from the February 16, 2018, indictment by Robert Mueller (pp24).] 
"KAVERZINA further wrote, 'I created all these pictures and posts, and the Americans believed that it was written by their people.'”
Vladimir Putin and the Russians must be toasting vodka slammers by the dozens as they watch their U.S. social media dashboards tracking the results of their devilish mischief. They must be wondering why they spent so much money on nukes and military madness when it's so easy this way.

Despite repeated warnings of Russian interference, Trump and his newly morphed GOP base of traitorous enablers have no incentive to stop the blatant Russian cyber attack on American democracy. Why would they? It all benefits them and furthers Trump's fantasy which appears to be some sort of autocratic takeover the U.S. democracy. Trump's single-minded focus on himself combined with his lack of respect for, and ignorance of, the American governmental foundation makes him the perfect stooge for Vladimir Putin.

The Russian meddling never stopped after the election and it's carefully fabricated and now woven into the tribalistic cloth of American politics. It is succeeding in spreading hate, distrust and disruption in our vulnerable society and fulfilling Putin's ultimate of dream of destroying the American state.

Meanwhile, the Secretary of State seems to have given them the green light; saying there really isn't much we can do and whatever we do they'll just figure a way around it. And, all the while POTUS says it's all fake news and a witch-hunt and like a spoiled child refuses to take his daily dose of Russian intel, because he doesn't like it and it upsets him. He would rather have his sugar coated pablum spoon fed to him by Fox News. 

#BetterGovmt, #FakeLeadership #FakeNews.





Sunday, February 4, 2018

How Wobbly Is Our Democracy?


From The New York Times



Monday, January 15, 2018

Mr. Trump & The Definition of "Odious"




o·di·ous
ˈōdēəs/
adjective


extremely unpleasant; 

repulsive, revolting, repulsive, 

repellent, repugnant, disgusting, 

offensive, objectionable, vile, 

foul, abhorrent, loathsome, 

nauseating, sickening, hateful, 

detestable, execrable, abominable,

monstrous, appalling, reprehensible, 

deplorable, insufferable, intolerable, 

despicable,contemptible, unspeakable, 

atrocious, awful, terrible, 

dreadful, frightful, obnoxious,

unsavory, unpalatable, unpleasant, 

dsagreeable, nasty, noisome, dstasteful; informalghastly, horrible, 

horrid, gross, godawful; beastly

1. deserving or causing hatred; hateful; detestable.

2. highly offensive; repugnant; disgusting.


3. similar to, or having characteristics like the 45th U.S. President