The Party of Family Values elects Mark "Appalachian Trail" Sanford to Congress

The man who gave a whole new meaning to the phrase "Hiking the Appalachian Trail" is back.  Mark Sanford is about to become the newest member of Congress, having defeated Elizabeth Colbert Busch in a special election in South Carolina.  

Sanford, the sitting married Republican Governor of South Carolina at the time, came to fame in 2009, when he "disappeared" for about six days, telling staffers that he was hiking the Appalachian Trail.  It turns out that he was "hiking" an Argentinian woman. (He is now divorced and engaged to the woman.)

 Sanford censured, but not impeached

The Republican controlled legislature threatened impeachment, but decided instead to censure Sanford for dereliction of duty, official misconduct and abuses of power that “brought ridicule and dishonor to himself, the State of South Carolina, and to its citizens."

A lot of Republicans have raised the specter of Bill Clinton and his affair with Monica Lewinsky to rationalize their support for Sanford, however, the Sanford affair is a little different.  First of all, because the GOP is supposed to be the party of family values, not the party of affairs with Argentinian women or any women for that matter.

Secondly, as a result of the "Appalachian Hike" it came to light that Sanford was playing fast and loose with the public's dime.  The state's Ethics commission filed 37 charges against Sanford, including spending taxpayer money on business-class flights, using state aircraft for personal travel and spending campaign funds for non-campaign expenses.

Where's the family values party?

Has the GOP abandoned its family values platform and become more understanding and forgiving of individual flaws, or has our country become so politically divided that Republicans will elect an ethically challenged Republican over any Democrat.  We believe the later to be true. We now live in a country where party triumphs over character and all other issues.

Competitive districts are rare

20 years ago, there were over a hundred Congressional district which were considered competitive (a district where the winner's victory is fewer than 10 percentage points.) Today, that number is about 35.  That means that about 400 of the 435 districts are not even in play every two years.  These districts are either so heavily Republican that a Democrat doesn't stand a chance, or vice versa.

We can thank the gerrymandering of Congressional districts in the various states.  Originally, sort of an incumbent protection act, a number of GOP controlled legislatures have turned gerrymandering into an art form which tilts the field to ensure the election of more Republicans to Congress.

Pennsylvania is a prime example of this.  13 of 18 of Pennsylvania's Congressional districts are represented by Republicans, despite the fact that Democrats received over 100,000 more votes for Congressional candidates than Republicans.

The PA legislature created "super" Democratic districts to eat up Democratic votes.  Take Democratic Congressman Chaka Fattah of Philadelphia for example.  Since his first election in 1994, he has never received less than 86 percent of the vote in a general election.  Democratic Congressman Bob Brady also has never received less than 85 percent in a general election since 1998.

Part of this disparity across the country is due to the fact that a lot of Democrats tend to live in concentrated population centers (big cities,) while Republicans are more scattered, but GOP controlled legislatures have magnified these population concentrations to their advantages.  The existence of these super Democratic districts have allowed for the creation of relatively safe GOP districts in suburban and rural areas.

South Carolina's 1st district, the one Sanford now represents, used to be more Democratic, but the South Carolina legislature moved traditionally Democratic areas to Democratic Congressman Jim Clyburn's already safe Democratic district.

More competitive districts would benefit the nation

The problem with the loss of competitive districts is that we have lost the political center in Congress.  In districts that are not competitive, the more extreme candidates tend to win the primaries, and thus the general election.  There is no more to the center at any time, because in the 400 safe districts, you need not look for votes on the other side of the aisle.  There are enough partisans to help you cruise to victory.

This hyper-partisanship has destroyed compromise.  It doesn't help with conservative media portraying all Democrats as evil, America-hating, Socialistic, atheists hell-bent on destroying America as we know it.

We need more competitive districts through the country, because that is the only way we can get the Congress to do something productive and stop electing ethically challenged candidates the likes of Mark Sanford.

Milton Shapp announces exploratory committee for 2014 Governor's race

    OneVoteCounts has learned that the former late Governor of Pennsylvania Milton Shapp has formed an exploratory committee to test the waters for a run for Governor of Pennsylvania in 2014.  Poor polling numbers by current Governor Tom Corbett has opened the door for many Republicans and Democrats to consider taking on Corbett.
    Shapp has some major obstacles to overcome, the least of which is being dead.  Shapp also must get around the Pennsylvania Constitution which prohibits anyone from serving more than two terms as Governor.  Shapp was Pennsylvania's first two term Governor, being elected in both 1970 and 1976, after the change on term limits came about after the 1968 Constitutional Convention.
    "I believe Shapp has a lot going for him," said Marshall and Franklin University Political Science Merry Tadonna.  "First of all, even a dead Shapp has more personality than a live Senator Bob Casey. Secondly, he has eight years of executive experience. And, finally, since he currently resides underground, he has a unique perspective on Marcellus Shale."
    "I don't believe Article IV, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution (prohibiting persons from serving more than two terms) applies to me due to my lack of a pulse," Shapp said while addressing one of the hurdles he faces in being elected to a third term.
    "The fact that Governor Shapp died in 1994 may not be as big of an obstacle as it seems," said national political pundit Cames Jarville.  "We've have dead people in Pennsylvania voting for years.  Following in that tradition, I don't see any reason why we can't have deceased people being elected to office."
    Buzz has run the numbers and conducted an automated telephone poll last night.  Among likely voters, Shapp leads Corbett 38 to 34 percent, with a 32 percent margin of error.
    "Shapp's polling numbers are very encouraging, not only among the living," said Buzz,  "but he also out polls the late Governor Gifford Pinchot, the late Governor Samuel Pennypacker, and the late Governor Thomas Mifflin by significant margins."
    Only former Governor Tom Ridge has more favorable polling numbers than Shapp.  Ridge has not announced whether he will consider a third term, but said the Shapp run is "unusual."
    Dead people have been elected to office in Pennsylvania before, but most of them were alive when their names were placed on the ballot.  All of these elections involved the recently dead. 
    "I was a ground breaker in Pennsylvania, being the first two term Governor," Shapp said when asked about only recently dead people winning election.  "The fact that I've been dead for almost 20 years, would be truly ground breaking (no pun intended.)"
    Democrats throughout the Commonwealth have been enthusiastic about a Shapp run.  "Shapp started this eight year Democrat, eight year Republican trend (referring to the fact that Pennsylvania has alternated between eight years of a Democratic governor with eight years of a Republican governor, said a well known Pennsylvania Democrat. "Who better than Shapp to end that streak."   
    Calls to Governor Corbett's office for a response a possible Corbett-Shapp match up in 2014, were not returned at the time of posting.

Wayne La Pierre would never pass a background check

Buzz and I have come to the conclusion that the reason Executive Vice President of the NRA Wayne La Pierre is so opposed to background checks is that he'd never pass the mental health aspect of the check.  He did support background checks in 1999, but that was during has sane years.  Today, he is just plain nuts.
    Since I'm not much of a hunter, sportsman, or gun enthusiast, and my idea of self defense falls into the Monty Python's Holy Grail retreat, "run away!" I had to consult Buzz on this one.  Buzz is a lifetime NRA member and quite the small game hunter.  Like Mitt Romney, he hunts varmints.  He has quite the collection of stuffed squirrels, racoons, rabbits, and prairie dogs adorning his living room walls.

Newtown should have changed everything

    After the tragic deaths of 20 children and 6 adults in Newtown, Connecticut, public outrage seemed to finally be on the side of gun control.  Three areas seemed ripe for reform:  background checks for all gun sales (criminal record and mental health,) limits on magazine clips (probably 10 or so per clip,) and a renewal of the expired assault weapons ban.
    The mental illness poster child Wayne La Pierre is opposed to all of these. They all infringe on the outrageous profits of gun manufacturers which La Pierre is trying to protect..... Oh sorry, I meant they infringe on the precious Second Amendment right to bear arms which La Pierre is trying to protect.
   
Second Amendment

    For the sake of argument, let's assume that the US Supremes were right when they decided in a 5 to 4 vote that the Second Amendment includes an individual right to bear arms (despite the clear meaning of the clause protects a state "militia's" right to bear arms.) With this said, no right is absolute.  If it were, we wouldn't have libel and slander laws or laws preventing speech which calls for imminent violence or the violent overthrow of the United States government.  (Remember, the First Amendment says, in part, "Congress shall make no law" prohibiting freedom of speech.)
La Pierre's argument that the reasonable laws being proposed are an infringement on Second Amendment rights are the stuff that should cause all reasonable gun owners to take pause and question La Pierre's sanity.

The public wants new gun laws

    94 percent of Americans polled by CNN in January favor background checks, including over 70 percent of NRA members. 61 percent favor bans on semi-automatic weapons, yet La Pierre says "nyet."
    President Barack Obama continues to press for background checks, magazine limits, and an assault weapons' ban, but it is highly unlikely that the magazine limits or assault weapons ban will pass through Congress.  Background checks do have a chance.
    La Pierre's opposition to background checks is pure bullshit.  If the NRA supports the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns, how does a background check get in the way.  No one in their right mind wants violent criminals to possess a firearm of any kind.  The same goes with those who are mentally ill.  People like the Colorado theater killer, the Gabby Giffords gunman, and the Newtown shooter should never have been within a mile of a loaded weapon.
    With regards to the magazine limits, Buzz and I were listening to satellite radio today, and they read a message from a 57 year old lifelong hunter.  In Newtown, the killer shot about 150 rounds in about 6 minutes, this 57 year old avid hunter said, "I haven't shot 150 rounds in my lifetime."  Sorta brings home the point on magazine limits.  For what lawful purpose would anyone need a 30 round magazine.  Heck, when I went through basic training, my M-16 had only a twenty round clip, and our job was to actually kill people in battle.
   The final piece is the assault weapons ban.  We had an assault weapons' ban in the US for about ten years.  Originally passed in the mid 1990s by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, the ban was allowed to lapse under the Republican Congress and President George W. Bush in 2004.  (Yes, Bush's screw ups weren't only the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, unnecessary tax cuts for the rich, running the economy into a ditch....)
    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid didn't even include the assault weapons' ban in his gun control bill, for fear that it could kill the background checks.  He did say it could be offered as an amendment to the bill.  Really?  Apparently too many Senators have been hanging out with La Pierre.

Time to wake up Congress

    It's time to wake up.  Congress needs to know that a good majority of the American people want new gun laws. 

   Republicans have been arguing against the new laws, in part, because they say we should enforce the laws already on the books.  Buzz and I agree, but there's no reason why we can't do both --- pass new laws and enforce the ones already out there.
    As for Wayne La Pierre, let's get him a mental health exam.

Will the GOP go the way of the Whigs

After losing the popular vote in 5 out of the last six elections and facing an electorate that just doesn't agree with a lot of their hard right policies, the Republican Party is hurting and may be headed down the road to marginalization at best or extinction at worst.  They may join the Whigs on the ash heap of history.
For about 30 years, the Whig Party was a major national political party in the United States.  They won two Presidential elections, one in 1840 with popular General William Henry Harrison, and one in 1848 with another popular general Zachary Taylor.  Both died in office.
In the 1850s, the party fell apart.  It was primarily replaced with the Republican Party, but many Whigs jumped ship and joined the Democrats or one of a number of smaller parties, including the Know Nothing Party and the Constitutional Union Party.  In fact by 1856, the party failed to nominate a standard bearer.
The major causes of the downfall of the Whig Party were a failure to keep the coalition of divergent views together and the issue of slavery.  Many Southern Whigs supported slavery, while Northern Whigs generally opposed it, at least the expansion of it beyond the Old South.
The Republican Party of today is facing its own crisis, primarily brought on by a drift to the conservative right.  There are no more moderate Republicans.  Moderate is a dirty word in the Republican Party.  It has come to take on the same bad connotations as "liberal."
This drift to the right is popular with the base, but has little to attract swing voters.  The great middle in this country that decides elections is okay with the fiscal conservative policies spouted by the GOP, but the GOP stance on women's issues, gay marriage, and immigration has turned off a substantial portion of the voters in the middle.
The Republican Party also faces a demographic problem.  The GOP has become the party of older white men.  The electorate is becoming browner and blacker and more female.  These are three groups that vote Democratic, and it appears the numbers will only get worse for the GOP.
The African American vote has been strongly Democratic for over a generation.  The Hispanic vote has dropped from around 40 percent for the GOP to about 25 percent.  The women's vote has switched from fairly even to about a 15 point edge for the Democrats.  All three of these groups are growing in numbers, with the Hispanic vote growing the fastest.
The National Republican Committee (NRC) conducted an "autopsy" on the 2012 election, and came to the obvious conclusion that they need to get a better percentage of the vote from these three groups.  The problem is they believe it is a failure to get their message across, and if they fine tune their message, these groups will flock to the GOP.
The NRC is dead wrong.  These groups have heard the GOP message loud and clear, and they don't like what the GOP is selling.  It's not the branding of the message that turns off these groups, it is the message.
A large percentage of these groups are totally turned off by the GOP's harsh stance on immigration, their attempts to suppress the African American vote, and their 1950s attitude towards women. Hispanics favor some sort of amnesty and path to citizenship for undocumented aliens, African Americans want to be able to vote without facing Jim Crow type hurdles at the polls, and women don't want the government interfering with decisions they make on their own bodies.
If the GOP doesn't break free from the stranglehold of the conservatives and religious right, they will join the Whigs on the ash heap of history.  We won't see a one party state, but it may take a while for a new party, more moderate than the GOP, to challenge the grand Democratic coalition.

Will the Roberts Court end up on the right side of history?

In 1857, Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote for a 7-2 majority in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.  The Taney court basically held that persons of African descent were not citizens of the United States under the Constitution. 
     Taney and his court will forever be remembered for that one case and for coming down on the wrong side of history.
     This week the John Roberts United States Supreme Court heard two cases involving same sex marriage.  Will the Roberts court come down on the right side of history, or will the Roberts court end up on the trash heap of history next to Roger Taney?
     Public opinion has come a long way since Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the mid 1990s.  It has also come a long way since Karl Rove, et. al. decided to use gay marriage as a wedge issue in the 2004 Presidential campaign.

Public Opinion has changed dramatically 

     In 1996, only 27 percent believed that gay marriage should be legal.  In 2004, about 33 percent believed gay marriage should be legal. A Washington Post poll conducted earlier this month showed that support for gay marriage had risen to 58 percent, with most recent polling showing support for gay marriage above 50 percent.
     What is even more compelling is the fact that the generational divide on this issue is enormous.  Where the Washington Post poll showed that only 44 percent of respondents over 65 supported gay marriage, the number swelled to 70 percent in the 18 to 39 demographic and 81 percent in the 18 to 29 demographic.
     The two major reasons for this change are that younger people tend to know a gay or lesbian friend or family member, and thus they are more accepting.  This can be attributed to the fact that most gay and lesbian people don't hide the fact that they are gay or lesbian anymore.  To put it simple, they are no longer "in the closet."
     The other reason is that as states pass same sex marriage laws, people have come to realize that the gay couple who got married down the street are going to destroy traditional marriage between a man and woman like we were all lead to believe by the opponents of gay marriage.
Buzz and I never understood this argument, and as people really began to think about the issue of same sex marriage, they came to the same conclusion.  The fact that two lesbians get married doesn't effect anyone's "traditional marriage" in the least bit.

Two same sex marriage cases were heard this week

     The Roberts Court heard arguments on whether California's Proposition 8 (outlawing gay marriage) should be upheld.  It's really a moot point, because if Proposition 8 were revisited by California voters in 2013, it would be soundly defeated.  This fact only may persuade the court to punt this case on some procedural ground.
     DOMA may face a similar fate.  Questions have been raised as to whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter.  The Supreme Court throughout the years has been happy to boot a case and not come to a decision on the merits, especially if the justices are divided.  They can at least come to an agreement not to make a decision.
     Veteran court watchers believe that five justices (including the "swing justice" Anthony Kennedy) have serious doubts about DOMA.  The only question that remains is whether those five justices will pen a broad decision holding that marriage is a fundamental right available to all citizens, whether gay or straight, or will the court toss out DOMA on some less dramatic grounds.
     The Court could also decide the Proposition 8 case on broad or narrow grounds.

Will the decisions to strike be 5 to 4 or 6 to 3?

     What Buzz and I find particularly intriguing is where will the Chief Justice land.  As we saw in the case upholding Obamacare, the CJ was quite cognizant of his role in history when he jumped sides and penned the majority opinion. Will Roberts do the same thing with regard to gay marriage.
     If Kennedy leads a five justice majority in either of these cases, he will by virtue of his seniority decide who writes the majority opinion.  He can take it himself or assign it to another justice.  We believe he will keep both of these if he is the fifth vote. This all changes if Roberts comes down on the side of same sex marriage.
     If Roberts is in the majority, he by virtue of being the CJ will decide who writes the majority opinion.  Buzz and I would not be surprised if he does.  Roberts does not want to spend eternity next to his former fellow Chief Justice Roger "African=Americans are property" Taney.

For One Brief Moment (Our Christmas Wish)

Buzz and I stumbled upon this poem written in the aftermath after the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School. It is our Christmas wish.

For One Brief Moment

For one brief moment, not too long ago, there was no hate.

For one brief moment, there was no war, no pain, and no suffering.

For one brief moment, there was no hunger, no tears, and no bigotry.

For one brief moment, there were no arguments, no fights, and no prejudice.

For one brief moment, there was nothing but love, beauty, and compassion.

But as suddenly as that one brief moment appeared, it was no more.

The dreamers among us know that someday that one brief moment

will return and last an eternity.

Merry Christmas to one and all.

The time has come to change the gun culture of America

When is enough enough?  The gun loving culture of America has to change and gutless politicians have to start standing up to the NRA.  ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!

How many children have to die before we realize that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with an individual's unfettered right to own semi-automatic weapons?

The senseless murder of 26 people, including 20 children in Connecticut today is a way too stark reminder that our nation has a love affair with guns that has to stop.

The Second Amendment is straight forward:  "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  How this has been perverted to mean that citizens can buy almost any "gun" they want will little or no restrictions is one of the greatest mysteries of modern America.

We will be told that now is not the time to talk about gun control.  It is "too soon."  It is not too soon.  The time is now, because if not now, when?  

We live in a society which glorifies gun violence.  It is without a doubt that the gun loving zealots in the United States will hit the airwaves over the next few days and proselytize that many lives would have been saved if teachers and principles were packing heat.  Bullshit!

It is simple arithmetic, fewer guns means fewer deaths by guns!

The time has come for this country to stop its love affair with guns.  We not only need to institute common sense laws that keep the guns out of the hands of the bad guys and those who are mentally unbalanced, but we have to change the culture to turn those who glorify guns into pariahs.

We have a perfect model for this.  Over the past 30 years we have not only toughened the Drunk Driving laws throughout the nation, but we have totally changed the attitude towards drunk driving.

30 years ago, people looked the other way when one of their friends tried to get behind the wheel after having a few too many drinks.  Today, although a small segment of society still doesn't recognize the dangers of drinking and driving, most of society has turned the "drunk driver" into a pariah.  It is no longer "cool" to drink and drive.

We have to do the same thing with gun violence.  Way too many innocent people have died in this country due to gun violence.  We will never be able to totally stop gun violence, but if we change the culture to demonize the use of guns, we will go a long way to stopping the senseless bloodshed we see way too often.

How many innocent children have to die on the altar of Second Amendment rights before we do something about it?