Republicans Who Oppose Health Care Reform Don't Care......

If medical insurance companies deny coverage to both adults and children for pre-existing conditions;

If millions of Americans are pushed into bankruptcy because of unpaid medical bills, bills that are either unpaid because the people couldn't afford insurance or because they exhausted their insurance benefits;

If medical insurance companies can raise rates with impunity;

If millions of Americans can't afford health insurance;

If medical insurance companies rescind policies when claims are made; or

If small businesses can't afford medical insurance coverage.

How do I know this? Because they are working to repeal the health insurance reform act which addresses all of these problems. Because in the six years that they controlled the Congress and the White House, they didn't do one damn thing to address these problems. Not one.

In the final analysis, those Republicans just don't care what happens to the millions of Americans who can't afford health insurance under the present system. Their attitude, by the way, is why I am not a Republican.

George Voinovich Is At It Again

Once again, when there is a Democratic President who wants to spend money on people as opposed to giving tax cuts to the wealthy, George Voinovich becomes a "deficit" hawk. We saw this before during the Clinton and Bush administrations.

When Clinton was President, George Voinovich talked about the need for a balanced Federal budget. Although interestingly enough we don't remember a lot of praise for Clinton from Voinovich when the Clinton administration left a surplus for his successor to squander.

But when Bubble-Boy became President and wanted to pass his reckless tax cuts in 2001and then again in 2003, where was Voinovich? Well, ol' deficit hawk George was right there with him, agreeing to his cuts in 2001 and 2003. Now in 2003 the deficit hawk is given credit for helping to cut Bush's tax cuts in half, although half of budget busting tax cuts is still half too many. Ol' deficit hawk George, however, then voted to extend the expiration date of tax cuts which had the effect of undoing his work in 2003.

By this time you may be wondering why in the world we are ranting about George Voinovich on Martin Luther King Day. Let's face we could be ranting about the Massachusetts special election or talking about what King meant to America, why are we ranting about George?

Well, it is because we read this article in the Plain Dealer about how George is trying to cap off his career by helping create a budget commission to control Federal spending. Once again the PD is acting like the public relations officer for George's Senate office and telling us how great George is for caring about deficit and the Federal budget.

Although, come to think about it, at least in this article the reporter does point out how Voinovich supported Bush's tax cuts. That is something new for the PD, acknowledging, however obliquely, the hypocrisy of Voinovich on budget deficits when Republicans are in power.

Hey, no matter what happens in the race for the U.S. Senate seat from Ohio, at least we won't be treated to the PD creaming their jeans for Voinovich anymore. (See, and you probably thought this article was going to end on an angry note.)

Republican Definition of Hypocrisy

This is the American Heritage Dictionary definition of hypocrisy:

hy·poc·ri·sy (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.
[Middle English ipocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, play-acting, pretense, from Greek hupokrisis, from hupokrnesthai, to play a part, pretend : hupo-, hypo- + krnesthai, to explain, middle voice of krnein, to decide, judge; see krei- in Indo-European roots.]

This is the Republican definition of hypocrisy:

hy·poc·ri·sy (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
1. The practice by a Democrat of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.
[Middle English ipocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, play-acting, pretense, from Greek hupokrisis, from hupokrnesthai, to play a part, pretend : hupo-, hypo- + krnesthai, to explain, middle voice of krnein, to decide, judge; see krei- in Indo-European roots.]

Not Good News for the GOP

This Gallup Poll on the favorable/unfavorable rating of each party shows that the GOP is in a world of hurt. They have 61% of the public having an unfavorable opinion of the GOP, as against only 34% having a favorable opinion.

Given these numbers, you would expect a political party to co-operate with the incoming President to try and get America out of the economic mess that its outgoing president got us into, but you would be wrong. The GOP's idea of a stimulus package? Cut the capital gains tax to zero.

Dems Better for Stock Market

The New York Times had an article showing how an investor would have done under both Republican and Democratic Presidents if the investor invested $10,000.00. As the picture below shows, there is no comparison. What makes the Democratic record better is that while most Democratic presidents didn't see the stock market go up as much as some of the Republicans, they didn't experience the losses that occurred under Hoover, Nixon, and George W. Bush.

Possible Senate Pick-Ups in KY, NC, GA, and MS?

Since most of polls show McCain comfortably ahead in most Southern states, people may not be aware that close Senate races are developing in the South. Republican incumbents in North Carolina, Kentucky, Georgia, and Mississippi find themselves in very competitive races. In fact, according to this article in Politico, one McCain aide thinks that Elizabeth Dole is certain to lose in North Carolina.

Right now there are only four Democratic Senators from the 11 states that made up the Confederacy. There is one Democratic Senator in Louisana, two in Arkansas, and one in Florida. There are three Democratic Senators from the border states of West Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri. They are found in West Virginia with two and one in Missouri. That could change after this election cycle.

Democrats are virtually guaranteed that they will pick up the open seat in Virginia. Right now the Democratic candidate is ahead in North Carolina. The GOP Majority Leader is in a much tougher race than anticipated in Kentucky. The appointed GOP Mississippi Senator is only up by about two percentage points. The Democrats are picking up steam in Georgia after the Republican incumbent voted for the Wall Street bailout.

The reason why these races are getting competitive is that southern states are not immune from the economic turmoil affecting America. Once you get below the race for president and into races where national security and race aren't as relevant to white voters, then Democrats are in a good position to make their case to a listening audience. Further, in North Carolina and Georgia, Democratic candidates are benefiting from the increase in the number of African-American voters caused by this spring's primaries between Clinton and Obama.

Keep your eye on those races, they could be very important in the Democrats' campaign to reach 60 votes in the Senate.

Republicans Will Provide Billions to Wall Street But Not Extend Unemployment Benefits

According to the website ProPublica, whose motto is "Journalism in the public interest", Republicans are blocking efforts to extend unemployment benefits to the jobless. This week, it is estimated that 800,000 workers who run out of unemployment benefits. Although bills have been introduced in both houses to extend such benefits by 13 weeks, Republican leaders wouldn't agree to add this to the bail-out bill.

Here is a quote from the article:

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Jim Manley, told ProPublica yesterday that Senate Republicans had "balked" at an attempt to attach an unemployment-benefits extension to the Wall Street rescue.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) spokesman, Don Stewart, said any extension bill "would be subject to debate and amendments."

What that last part means is that the bill would be subject to the Senate Rules which allow 40 Senators to threaten to filibuster legislation, thus requiring a cloture vote to cut off debate. In the 1950s and 60s Southern Senators used this trick to deprive African-Americans of their rights. Now, Republicans use this tactic to deprive the unemployed of more aid.

Republicans: Billions for their friends on Wall Street, nothing for the unemployed of Main Street.

Brad Delong's Great Pic on GNP Growth & Presidents

To see more graphic representations by Delong on why Democrats are better than Republicans for the economy, click here.

Democratic Presidents Outperform Republicans on Job Growth

David Fiderer, a former banker who now works as a journalist, wrote an article for Huffington Post that points out that job creation under Democratic Presidents far exceeds job creation under Republicans. Here is a quote from his article:

No Republican President -- not Eisenhower, not Nixon, not Reagan, not Bush -- has ever created more jobs, or created jobs at a faster rate, than his Democratic predecessor. It's not even close. The contrast has been especially stark over the past 16 years, when 23.1 million jobs were created under Clinton and less than 5 million were created under Bush. On average, job growth under Democrats is more than twice that under Republicans.

What makes this statistic even more impressive is that since 1948, Democratic presidents have been in office 24 years compared to 36 years for Republicans. Here is a graphic example of the difference in total job creation:



Parents all over America are worried about their kids getting jobs when they get out of school. Democrats need to spread this simple message: "Our policies create more jobs than Republican policies."

NYT Charts States Going Blue

The chart above was prepared from figures contained in a New York Times article. The article was about the changes in party registeration since the 2004 election. During that time, according to the NYT, more than half of the 29 states that allow registration by party had an increase in the number of Democrats. The top seven are shown in the chart.

This is a quote from the article:

In several states, including the traditional battlegrounds of Nevada and Iowa, Democrats have surprised their own party officials with significant gains in registration. In both of those states, there are now more registered Democrats than Republicans, a flip from 2004. No states have switched to the Republicans over the same period, according to data from 26 of the 29 states in which voters register by party. (Three of the states did not have complete data.)

In six states, including Iowa, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, the Democratic piece of the registration pie grew more than three percentage points, while the Republican share declined. In only three states — Kentucky, Louisiana and Oklahoma — did Republican registration rise while Democratic registration fell, but the Republican increase was less than a percentage point in Kentucky and Oklahoma. Louisiana was the only state to register a gain of more than one percentage point for Republicans as Democratic numbers declined.

You can read the Times article here.

Democrats Need to Talk About Greed

There is an article in the New York Times on Sunday, March 22, 2008, about the split between Republicans and Democrats over the need for regulation of the financial services industry. This article illustrates why Democrats need to do a better job of linking the financial crisis caused by recent events such as the sub-prime mortgage meltdown and the collapse of Bear Sterns to Republicans. As much as Republicans may want to act as if these things just happen, there is a connection. That connection is that Republicans don't believe in regulation of business and therefore are ill equipped to deal with the problems caused by a very human condition: greed.

These financial crises take place when human beings want to make a lot of money. Now, on the one hand, to quote the character played by Michael Douglas in Wall Street, "greed is good." The desire to make a buck is what drives the American economy.

On the other hand, however, greed can cause human beings to do things that are bad for others. When the desire to make a buck overtakes any feeling of civic responsibility, then people start doing things that are bad for the rest of us. Things like loaning money to people who are not really able to pay the money back, or things like creating exotic financial instruments that investors don't really understand. Greed causes the strong to prey on the weak, all in the name of "rugged individualism."

That's where government comes in. Government regulation can level the playing field, make sure that the strong understand there are consequences to preying on the weak, or perhaps a better way to describe it is preying on the uninformed. Wall Street executives, like most of us, don't want to go to prison or have their reputations ruined.

When liberals try to pass legislation banning discrimination of various kinds, conservatives often claim that liberals just don't understand human nature. They claim that human nature is what drives people to discriminate and "you just can't change human nature." Well, if that is so, then one thing that you can't change is the all too human condition of greed. You can, though, regulate it. Something that Republicans just don't want to do.

The issue facing Democrats is how to make that lack of will to regulate business understandable to American voters. Here's a suggestion: Start talking about the greed of Wall Street executives. Americans understand simple, clear language. Instead of talking about hedge funds and sub-prime mortgages until voters' eyes glaze over, talk about the need to control human greed. In other words, don't talk details, talk philosophy. People elect officeholders based on philosophy. It is the officeholders job to then attend to the details.

All too often, the only side talking about philosophy is the GOP. They explain their attacks on government by saying things like "big government is bad." The way to counter that is not to list all the beneficial programs that Democrats have passed, the way to counter that is to have a equally clear message. On regulation of the economy, the clear message should be that "humans are greedy and greed needs to be controlled." A clear, simple message beats a complicated message every time.

Sweet Revenge: Democrats Take Former GOP Speaker Hastert's Seat in Special Election

Dennis Hastert, the former Republican Speaker of the House, who helped turn the House into a lap-dog for George W. Bush, resigned and left the House late in 2007. His resignation meant that there had to be a special election for that seat. The election took place on Saturday, March 8, 2008, and the Democrats won the seat.

While the Republcan National Committee is trying to downplay the significance of the Democrats' win, this is a very good thing for Dems. The Republican Congressional Campaign Committee poured $1,000,000 into the race when it became apparent that the Democrats could take the seat. John McCain campaigned for the Republican nominee and Barack Obama endorsed the Democratic nominee. So, not only does the GOP lose a seat that had gone for George W. Bush in 2004 by a vote of 55% to 45%, its presidential nominee looks like he has zero coattails. All in all, a very good night for Democrats.

Thirteen Democratic Senators Vote to Support Bush on Wiretap Bill

Thirteen Democratic Senators voted to support the Bush Administration on its controversial wiretap bill by voting against a Democratic alternative. The thirteen Democrats are mostly, but not all, from states that Bush carried in 2000 and 2004. They are as follows: Bayh from Indiana, Carper from Delaware, Inouye from Hawaii, Johnson from South Dakota, Landrieu from Louisana, Lieberman from Connecticut, McCaskill from Missouri, Mikulski from Maryland, Nelson from Florida, Nelson from Nebraska, Pryor from Arkansas, Rockefeller from West Virginia, and Salazar from Colorado. (We realize that counting Lieberman as a Democrat seems wrong, but that is the way the Senate records his party affiliation.)

Of those 13 Senators, nine of them come from states that Bush carried in both 2000 and 2004, assuming that you accept the fact that Gore lost Florida in 2000. The Senators that come from states that Democrats carried in both elections are Carper,Inouye, Lieberman, and Mikulski.

On the Republican side, no Senators voted with the Democratic position, although two of them, McCain and Graham, did not vote. Two Democratic Senators also didn't vote, Obama and Clinton. They, like McCain, are campaigning for their party's presidential nomination, but even if all four of them had been present, the bill still would have had 60 votes and been assured passage by a margin great enough to overcome a filibuster.

Eight Democrats who voted for the bill who came from states that Bush carried in both 2000 and 2004 are Baucus from Montana, Brown from Ohio, Byrd from West Virginia, Conrad from North Dakota, Dorgan from North Dakota, Lincoln from Arkansas, Tester from Montana, and Webb from Virginia. Obviously for the above eight Senators, this was not an easy vote, and they are to be commended for their political courage in opposing the Bush Administration on this bill.

The Inspirational Effect of Political Leaders

During the 1930s & 40s the Democratic Party gained a lot of supporters because of Franklin D. Roosevelt. During the 1960s the Party gained a lot of supporters because of John and Robert F. Kennedy. Roosevelt and the Kennedys inspired young people to consider politics and government service as possible careers. If you look back over the resumes of active Democrats in their 50s and 60s you will often find links to the Kennedys.

The Republican Party didn't have a politician with that effect until Barry Goldwater. Although Goldwater was not successful in gaining political power, he did galvanize a generation of young conservative activists. These activists then helped Ronald Reagan gain political power in the 1980s and became the backbone of the Republican Party.

It is this inspirational effect that was one reason why Republicans could not afford to have Bill Clinton become a role-model for young people. If he could be tarnished, then the inspirational effect of his leadership would be seriously hampered. While this may not have been the main reason why Republicans opposed him, I believe it is one reason.

Which leads to the situation in 2007. After all the damage that Bush has done to the Republican "brand" it is obvious that he isn't going to serve as a role model for anyone except right-wing authoritarians. If the Democrats can nominate and elect either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, they can inspire a whole generation of Americans.

Think of the message that we would be sending the world if we elected either a woman or a black man as President. Young people, and young women in particular, would be energized by a Clinton Presidency. Young people, and Afro-Americans in particular, would be energized by a Obama Presidency. This energy would carry the Democratic Party into the future. Since America is becoming a nation of minorities in the sense that no one racial group will be the majority, the election of Clinton or Obama would also position the Democratic Party to appeal to a very diverse electorate.

None of this will happen without a fight, a fight that will be as vicious as it will be important. People don't give up power without a struggle and the right-wing authoritarians who make up the leadership of the Republican Party are no exception.

Bush & Right-Wing Radical Republicans Don't Want to Fund S-CHIP at Current Levels

The Washington Post ran an article that was dated Wednesday, October 17, 2007 that was in a question and answer format about the State Children's Health Insurance Program. This particular question and answer is very important:

Q: How much additional money, on top of the $5 billion-a-year baseline funding, is needed to preserve the same size program over the next five years?

A: Keeping the program at current levels would require expanding funding by about $13.4 billion over five years, for total funding of $38.4 billion between 2008 to 2012, according to a CBO report in May. Part of the reason is rising medical costs. President Bush has proposed a $5 billion expansion, for total program funding of $30 billion over the next five years. He has said he might be willing to go higher. The bill Bush vetoed would increase funding by $35 billion over the five years, for a program total of $60 billion. Ultimately, it would cover 10 million people.

In other words Bush and the heartless, right-wing radical Republicans who control the Republican Party aren't willing to even fund the program at current levels. Democrats need to stress this point. They also need to come back with a funding proposal for about 18 months that raises the funding by an amount necessary to keep the coverage the same. It would actually be a lower cost than what Bush is requesting, because it would only cover children to the end of the Bush Administration, and a veto of that bill would be very hard for Republicans to defend.

Bush Sinks to Record Low in Reuters/Zogby Poll

A new poll out by Reuters and the John Zogby polling firm shows that Bush is at an approval rate of only 24%, going below his previous low of 29%. That's the good news. The bad news is that the approval rate for the Democratic controlled Congress is at 11%, tying the record low of September. Here's how John Zogby puts it:

"There is a real question among Americans now about how relevant this government is to them," pollster John Zogby said. "They tell us they want action on health care, education, the war and immigration, but they don't believe they are going to get it."

The dismal assessment of the Republican president and the Democratic-controlled Congress follows another month of inconclusive political battles over a future path in Iraq and the recent Bush veto of an expansion of the program providing insurance for poor children.

The article quotes Zogby as saying that these record low numbers for both Congress and the President pose a problem for both parties. This is how he puts it:

Voter turnout could still be high next year, but the mood has turned against incumbents and into a 'throw the bums out' mindset," Zogby said.

While Zogby maybe overstating the impact on Democrats given that the President is far and away the most prominent political office in the country, he has a good point. Most Americans don't follow the ins and outs of political battles. They want government to work and their problems addressed. On the one hand, except possibly for immigration, the other issues he mentions favor Democrats and a progressive approach to government. On the other hand, Bush's obstructing of the Democrats' agenda could be paying benefits because it stops Democrats from getting anything done.

Democrats need to do a much better job of communicating to voters who is responsible for the gridlock in D.C. They should be running ads in newspapers on how Bush is vetoing the children's health insurance bill while seeking billions more for the Iraq War. Ads like those would make an impact and help set the record straight on which political party is refusing to address the real needs of ordinary Americans.

Bush and his Phony Vetoes

There is an article out on Saturday, October 13, 2007, by the Associated Press on how Bush wants a budget fight with Congress now that it is controlled by Democrats. When Congress was controlled by Republicans and they were running up deficits Bush couldn't bring himself to veto a spending bill. Now, however, that Democrats control the Congress he wants a veto fight to show that Republicans are really, despite their miserable record, fiscal conservatives.

This is really, like a lot of what Bush does, phony. If he and his Republicans cohorts were really interested in fiscal responsibility they wouldn't have pushed through his reckless tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. If he was really interested in holding down government spending, he would have vetoed bills that were passed by the Republican Congresses earlier in his tenure as president. The fact that he waits until he has a Congress that is controlled by Democrats to get fiscal religion is just one more example of the essential phoniness of George W. Bush. It goes along with his fake cowboy routine with his ranch down in Texas and his warlike rhetoric that hides his masculine insecurities.

Here are some items that Bush wants in the budget: Cuts in programs that provide job training, low-income housing and grants to community groups that help the poor, as well as grants to state and local governments.

Here are some things he wants in the budget: More money for the Pentagon, not counting the cost of the war in Iraq.

Where a person puts his or her money reveals a lot about their priorities in life. Bush wants more money for war and less money for people.

NPR Interview with Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman has released a new book called The Conscience of a Liberal. National Public Radio did an interview with Krugman on its show All Things Considered. During this interview Krugman made the point that starting with the Ronald Reagan there has been an conscious attempt by the conservative movement to dismantle the programs of FDR that alleviated the effect of income inequality in the United States. These programs included helping unions organize, increasing the minimum wage, and social security. These programs were aided by the Johnson initiatives such as Medicare, Medicaid, and, perhaps most importantly, the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Since 1980, though, all of these programs have, at one time or another, been under attack by the political right of the United States with varying degrees of success. Democrats have been on the defensive for the last generation, only occupying the White House for 8 of the last 27 years and losing control of both Houses of Congress for 12 of those years. When asked why he thought that so many Americans were willing to vote against their economic self-interest Krugman replied with one word: race.

He pointed out that other western societies have not seen the same degree of political support for politicians who want to do away with government programs to help the economic middle and working classes. He says that the difference between those societies and the U.S. is race. He points out that the base of the Republican Party in presidential politics is in the South, the 11 states that made up the Confederate States of America. They started voting Republican in 1964 when four of them voted for Goldwater. Republicans increased their vote in the South in 1968 and 1972, and then really expanded it in 1980. White southerners became Republicans after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act. The Republican gains in the South did not take place because white southerners woke up one day and decided to embrace tax cuts. They took place because of race, a fact that Republicans and their media allies don't, for the most part, want to talk about.

Why Don't Dems Just Pass One Year Bills?

There is an article in the New York Times dated October 9, 2007, that reports that Democrats appear ready to give the Bush Administration most of what it wants in a new domestic surveillance bill. This is from the article:

As the debate over the eavesdropping powers of the National Security Agency begins anew this week, the emerging measures reflect the reality confronting the Democrats.

Although willing to oppose the White House on the Iraq war, they remain nervous that they will be called soft on terrorism if they insist on strict curbs on gathering intelligence.

This is also from the article:

A Democratic bill to be proposed on Tuesday in the House would maintain for several years the type of broad, blanket authority for N.S.A. eavesdropping that the administration secured in August for six months.

Here's our question: Why for "several years"? Why not for just 18 months and then look at the issue again in 2009, when you may have a Democratic President and a stronger majority in the U.S. Senate and possibly the House of Representatives? Too often the Democrats fall into the trap of thinking that the choice is either one way or the other and they never look for a middle way. This would seem to be one of those times.

Republicans & Wing-Nut Bloggers Attack 12 Year Old Boy & Family

Just one more reason why we are not Republicans: We would find it impossible to be a part of a political party who decides that a 12 year old boy who was critically injured in a automobile crash and didn't have health insurance is a legitimate political target. Here is some background from the ABC News story linked to above:

With debate raging in Washington over children's health insurance, congressional Democrats found a new way to make their case for an expansion last weekend: Rather than have a senator or a congressman respond to President Bush's weekly radio address, they decided to have a child who was helped by the program speak directly to the public.

But the 12-year-old boy whom Democrats chose as their poster child is now at the center of a firestorm in Washington and beyond. Conservative bloggers who uncovered some details of the family's finances are blasting the family, calling the fact that they rely on federal insurance an example of how the State Children's Health Insurance Program has expanded beyond its original intent.

According to Senate Democratic aides, some bloggers have made repeated phone calls to the home of 12-year-old Graeme Frost, demanding information about his family's private life. On Monday, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid accused GOP leadership aides of "pushing falsehood" in an effort to distract from the political battle over S-CHIP.

Now, you are probably asking yourself why would even Republicans be this mean? Here is what they are alleging:

But after a largely positive story about Frost appeared in the Baltimore Sun, conservative-leaning bloggers began focusing on details of Frost's family situation. They suggested the family makes the conservative argument -- that the children's health insurance program has strayed from its original purpose by subsidizing healthcare for middle-class families, not just poor children.

A blogger on FreeRepublic.com discovered that Frost and his sister, Gemma, attend a private school where tuition costs $20,000 a year. Their father, Halsey, is a self-employed woodworker, meaning that if his family doesn’t have health insurance, it’s because Halsey Frost -- as his own boss -- chooses not to purchase it for himself.

"One has to wonder that if time and money can be found to remodel a home, send kids to exclusive private schools, purchase commercial property and run your own business . . . maybe money can be found for other things," a blogger with the handle "icwhatudo" wrote on FreeRepublic.

Only, of course, being Republicans they didn't bother to check out the facts. Here's what we are referring to:

But Manley say conservative bloggers didn't dig deep enough. It turns out that the Frost children attend Baltimore’s Park School on near-full scholarships; they pay roughly $500 per child per year in tuition, he said.

Like many small-business owners, Halsey Frost can't even afford to provide health insurance to himself, Manley said.

"Last year, the Frost's made $45,000 combined," Manley said. "Over the past few years they have made no more than $50,000 combined depending on Halsey's ability to find work."

The Frost family did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

Of course, facts don't manner to Washington, D.C., Republicans, whether the issue is starting a war in Iraq, passing reckless tax cuts, or vetoing children's health insurance, they just don't care.