Politics and The Art of

Blackmail Compromise in action!

So the rich get their tax cuts extended, but is that all there is to the story? Not likely. No, I suspect a lot of backroom hardball is behind Obama's allowing the tax cut extensions even though he was heartily against them.

Here's how I see it:

Through the art of blackmail bargaining, the Republicans got:

1. The money for themselves (after all, they're part of the 'rich' that benefited), their friends and their rich contributors thanks to the tax cut extension
2. And the murder of the Dream Act killed

Both of the above were their two biggies (God forbid the richest should lose more of their riches - OR - that any illegal immigrants should be allowed relief in the form of citizenship) and all they had to do - was what they'd planned to do all along:

1. Vote to extend Unemployment benefits
2. Vote to repeal DADT

Am I happy?

Not so much. I'm no longer a Democrat (remember, I'm now a member of the new Common Sense Party (or CSP) and as such, I supported:

1. The end to the tax cut for the richest (which, with its extension, will now add $700 billion to the Nation's debt)
2. The much needed extension of unemployment benefits (which is NOT an entitlement, nor something given to lazy people who don't want to work, but rather something desperately needed due to our tanked economy and an unemployment rate that's now 9.6 compared to 4.9 of just a year ago)
3. The Dream Act, which was an excellent stepping stone to real Immigration reform, not to mention demonstrating the fact that America has a heart (in case you're not sure, the Dream Act provided legal residency to young people who came to the United States illegally before age 16 but have since graduated from high school, completed two years of college - or military service - and had no criminal record) and its death kills any chance for real Immigration Reform for Obama - including reforms that would have made even Republicans happy.
4. Yep, strong supporter of repealing DADT as previous posts have shown.

IMHO, none of the above are brain-stretchers. None of them should have been points of contention but rather obvious answers to real problems. And you know what's even worse? The fact that I suspect Obama also gave up the 911 First Responders bill in order to get 2 out 4 of the above, which means in reality, by succumbing to blackmail bargaining, he lost three key items in order to gain two. That's beginners politics as opposed to the strong, experienced politics we need. But America could have had all four of the above plus the First Responders Bill (check out the Daily Show (video 1) to find out more about the bill, including video 2) thanks to a little something called 'budget reconciliation' - a tool that's been used very effectively in the past to by-pass the filibuster when cloture was impossible due to not having the necessary 60 votes (as happened with the addition of Republican Scott Brown to the Senate).

PS: If you're angry about the death of the First Responders Bill, you can help by being part of the largest 'retweet' in the nation. Go here and retweet the 14th tweet down, which reads: "make this the biggest national retweet ever! Demand the James Zadroga 9/11 Health Bill be passed before 12/31/10! NO MORE FILIBUSTERS!"

Today, everyone is talking about - and cheering - the repeal of DADT - and yet, the First Responders to 911 are dying and we're doing nothing about it but giving them the flim-flam. Vets (especially Desert Storm vets) have already been through this; the whole ignoring the cancers and other ailments that were a direct result of being exposed to toxins during Desert Storm and, yet, not a peep from anyone but Jon Stewart about the death of this critically needed bill.


YOU CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT - you can retweet it, then start calling, emailing and writing your Congressperson - and get your friends to do the same. NOW.

A short Thanksgiving thought about DADT

I'm thankful on this day of Thanksgiving for every military personnel on US soil or foreign soil, who protects us - with their lives if necessary. And for that reason, I find it important to discuss DADT on this day of thanks (because yes, some of those men and women in uniform are gay).

The politicians in Washington (our President included) want us to believe that it's vital we have all the information from the Pentagon Report on the effects of gays in the military before repealing DADT. I have one word for that:

Hogwash.

Why hogwash? Simple. The same tactic was utilized before allowing blacks to serve in the same units with whites - and again when deciding if women should be allowed to fight side-by-side with their male counterparts. I can actually understand how waiting for a report from the Pentagon would be necessary for the above as those represented major changes. Yes, blacks were in the service, but in separate units and quarters. Women served too but either as 'office' personnel, or within the medical field, so allowing them to actually serve side-by-side with men (and white men), to allow them into a military academy, and into battle - altogether, as one cohesive unit, yeah,that was a major change.

And yes, I can hear you now: "But so is having gays in the military".

Wrong.

You see, it's damn hard to hide the fact that you're black or a female, so unless I lived in a parallel universe where, for instance, gender wasn't obvious, then there's no way I could join the military now and simply not reveal the fact that I was female. But you see, gays are already working side-by-side with their fellow soldiers - and if you think many don't know it, don't know who those gay soldiers or officers are, well, there's a place called Fantasyland and you might just live there.

Now let me say this again:

GAYS ARE ALREADY IN THE MILITARY

There are already seamen who are gay, soldiers who are gay, pilots who are gay and big, buff Marines who are gay. There are already gay officers. All of them working, sleeping, eating, showering, and fighting right next to their straight counterparts. And you know what? They have been - from day one. 

So really, this particular version of the famous "Pentagon Report" on how the military will handle this particular so-called 'minority' in its oh, so precious ranks is far less important than in the past. In fact - it's ludicrous. 

Am I saying there won't be problems when some soldiers actually know who the gays are, or find out that they've been successfully following a gay leader for the last year? No. There will be, just as there were issues when blacks were finally permitted to serve with whites instead of in the proverbial back of the bus. But the military survived - and thrived. 

And yes, there were major problems for women, especially when they dared to join the ranks of cadets in a military academy. But guess what? The military survived and many soldiers would say now that they can't imagine their world without that female soldier - or black - standing with them in battle. 

Soldiers - our military - are, for the most part, the brightest and the best. They hold honor high, sacrifice is a normal act and their courage, legendary. We do them a great disservice to believe that they won't be able to get past the discovery that the man or woman fighting beside them just happens to also be gay - anymore than fighting side-by-side with redheads, blondes (and blonds), Catholics, Jews, surfers, family men and women, single men and women, divorced soldiers, etc. So tell our politicians to get off the stupid dime and just end it. Stop looking for excuses, stop thinking less of our men and women in uniform who defend us daily - and just stop DADT.

Once and for all.

A Lesson on How Republicans Will Win

just took place on the Rachel Maddow Show a few minutes ago. She made the mistake of inviting Art Robinson (R-OR), a man who is running for office - for the first time - against Pete Defazio (D-OR) to be a guest. I can only assume that until the interview began, Rachel's only thought was, "At last, I actually have another Republican to interview!". Based on her interview with Rand Paul, she should have known better. And based on the results of this interview, Mr. Robinson was not only well-coached, but his mind and opinions on and of Ms. Maddow were already well set, leaving no room for common respect, truth, or courtesy.

But then, the one thing Republicans do well is take a 3 minute interview, turn it into 10, and not allow the interviewer to get a word in edgewise, sidewise, or any other way. In this case, Robinson rarely stopped the flow of useless rhetoric, utilizing words like "Liar, lying, lies", "sarcasm, sarcastic" and of course, control phrases to make us believe he wasn't being given a chance to speak (even though he never shut up), like, "It's your show", "You run the camera", etc.

And of course, if Ms. Maddow managed to actually get the phrase, "I just want to ask one question" in, Robinson simply started the spewing all over again, rarely allowing her to actually ask said question without immediately interrupting her by calling her a liar even though she was reading his OWN newsletter, his own words.

What was witnessed on Rachel's show were common tactics employed by politicians (on both sides) around the world, people who know how to take full advantage of an 'on-tv' interview by satellite, who know how to avoid actually dealing with real issues and answering honestly because being honest might lose them votes, not to mention an election. In the world of magicians, it's called 'misdirection' - and politicians do it so well.

Overall, these interviews are useless - but they can teach one thing: The person doing the spewing is not someone we want to vote for or know, or listen to or believe in any context - ever. I don't care if they're a Democrat, Republican or a Purple People Eater. 

Mr. Robinson, you're a coward.

And anyone who utilizes this type of interview tactic is also a coward and nothing more.

We have a PARTY NAME!

Yes, we do! We are now the Common Sense Party! YAY! So let's do our check-off list:

Party Name: YES (Common Sense Party)
Party Symbol: YES (the wolf)
Party Color: YES (purple)
Party Platform: Almost (any day now)

SPREAD THE WORD and JOIN THE COMMON SENSE PARTY!

...er...for now, you can join by simply following this blog. We're not that organized yet. :)

Figured out the answers to the questions

from this post?

Let's look at the questions again:

• Why would privatizing (meaning allowing a private *business* to take over) Social Security be a bad idea and who would benefit by private business taking over? (this is part of not only the Tea Party agenda but now on the newly released Republican agenda)

Answer:

Big Business would benefit. The insurance companies WOULD benefit. We'd all be at their mercy just as we are now, only now, so would seniors, the disabled and veterans. Religion might be the foundation of the Tea Party - and the Republicans who are running to jump on their bandwagon - but money is the grease that keeps the wheels moving and who has the big money? Yeah, big business.

• Why is something we PAY into - considered an entitlement? Is a paycheck earned for a hard day's work also an entitlement?

Answer:

No, of course our paycheck isn't an entitlement - it's earned. BUT, because the word 'entitlement' is one of the negative political words that the right loves to use when talking about minorities, they're using it now when speaking of Social Security. They want to evoke certain images in your brain - like illegal immigrants. By using the word, they draw a picture for you of people taking money, food and medicine out of YOUR mouth, YOUR life, but the truth is - you ARE entitled to the benefits that Social Security provides because YOU PAID FOR IT. And since we don't punish all of America just because a few are taking advantage, then damn it, get off the 'entitlement' crap and leave our Social Security alone. Instead, DEAL with those who are trying to abuse the system. 

• Why does being forced to use your Social Security benefits or Social Security Disability benefits (the ones you've paid into for years) - make you lazy?

Answer:

Same as above. It puts a vision in your mind of people the Right won't say out loud because it's politically incorrect - even for them - to describe these individuals. The word "Lazy" tries to force you to see ALL minorities in an unflattering light because they're counting on the fact that you WANT to. But come on, if you're disabled, can't work, and have NOTHING but your SSD, are you really lazy? If you're in pain and unable to do what you made you feel good, like working, making a living, supporting your family, are you lazy? And even now, when so many on SSD can't make ends meet - are they really lazy?

YES, the Tea Party wants to take all of this away from us because, according to them, it's only used by 'lazy minorities and illegal immigrants' and yet - at the same time, they want to payoff their 'employers' (not you, their constituents, but the guys paying their bills: Big Businesses) by privatizing it.

• Why are the hard-won rights of the Disabled a bad thing - and who would benefit by the loss of those rights? 

Answer:

Big Business profits. They'd no longer have to even consider you if you're disabled, even if your qualifications match the next best candidate. They could stop putting special parking slots aside and spending money on special ramps and restrooms. Dump these rights and Big Business saves big bucks while the disabled return to being the invisible. Imagine no longer being able to get that wheelchair up and onto the sidewalk? Or enter any building where the access is only ... STAIRS? I could go on, but if you have an ounce of intelligence, you've figured it out.

How do we stop all of this? How do we get Americans to see the truth when we know that just saying it proves nothing. So how 'bout research? How 'bout finding out WHO contributes to candidates? And how much? And what boards our candidates are on - or were on - before throwing their political hats into the ring? Check voting history. The internet is full of the truth - you just have to dig.

For instance, why is that Republicans were all for "pre-existing" conditions in the Health Reform Bill - and now want it gone? Who benefits by the removal of this protective aspect of the law? *taps chin* Mmmm...now who could it be....

Insurance companies???

Insurance companies who contribute huge amounts of money to certain Senators?

Check it out.

As predicted, DADT didn't cut the mustard

meaning that in spite of having a majority vote - they still didn't have the stupidly required 60 votes to pass the Defense bill that held the opportunity to eventually repeal DADT. This opened the door for McCain (who, before the Tea Party put his career in jeopardy, was in favor of the repeal) to filibuster. And in case you're low on how this works, a filibuster stops any chance to debate the amendment in question.

Of course, this was no surprise to me - as I said, I predicted it - but that doesn't mean there weren't a few surprises that bowled me over. For instance, the fact that an important Democratic vote was lost.

Can we say, "Harry Reid"? I thought we could.

His resounding vote of "NO!" is still being heard from one end of the country to the other (not to mention a couple of other supposedly shoe-in votes from both Democrats and Republicans).

Apparently, there were three primary reasons for the counted on Republicans who'd previously supported the repeal - became turncoats and voted against the bill today (thus allowing McCain who now can be called totally insane) to filibuster. Here are the top three reasons:

1. They wanted the chance to debate the issue
2. They wanted the military to have the opportunity to study how repealing DADT would affect the military
3. They didn't feel this bill was the appropriate bill for adding amendments

Sounds good, eh? *rolls eyes* Well, as the news media has pointed out over and over again tonight, and as anyone who Googles could find out, a filibuster actually STOPS any debate - so #1 is an outright lie.

Knowing that, one must ask: "Why don't they want the debate today?"

Hello? Can we say "Upcoming Primaries"? Can we say, "We don't have time for a debate, we have campaign calls to make and seats to win!"

Yeah, I thought you could.

#2 - Another outright lie. The Amendment does NOT repeal DADT, that's a misnomer deliberately utilized by the Republicans and believed by those who haven't done their research. The amendment was written so that the repeal could not go into effect until after the Pentagon published the results of their survey on how service members and their families view the change (that report is due in December). It also states that such a repeal can not take affect until after the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that the repeal will not affect the military’s ability to fight.

#3 - probably the most ridiculous lie of all. In every administration, and every year that the Defense Bill comes up for a vote, amendments are added (just like every other bill under the sun). And in most cases, those amendments have NOTHING to do with the bill itself. This tactic is used by both parties.

"You want my vote for Senate Bill #yadda yadda? Fine, just add this tiny little amendment and you've got my vote." 

Sound familiar? Of course it does. That's politics.

In 2005, Rep. Dennis Hastert threatened to hold up the Defense Bill unless an anti-immigration amendment was added. He did something similar in 2006, refusing to vote for the bill unless a federal court security bill was added. In 2004, Rep. Sen. Sam Brownback added an FCC amendment to the Defense Bill - one that would increase fines for indecent entertainment! Yeah, that one really belongs in a Defense Bill! (All these were looked up easily, btw).

And adding another "BTW": the discussion regarding repealing DADT in the bill isn't the only amendment that has the ire of the Republicans. In fact, the real reason for what happened today might just have more to do with something called the "Dream Act". And what is that? What, you've never heard of it?  Well, you see, the Dream Act establishes citizenship for undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children and then enroll in college or enlist in the military. Needless to say, the Republicans don't want it, but they're being fairly quiet because military experts agree that such an amendment would actually strengthen the military. The Department of Defense actually supports the Dream Act (just as most highly placed military leaders support the repeal of DADT).

Oh, it should be noted that the Democrats who became turncoats stated that their reason for voting 'no' was that clearer heads will prevail after the Mid-Term elections in November.

This is me - laughing - at their stupidity.

Small break for some applauding:

I would be remiss not to praise Lady Gaga while at the same time, weeping for the youth of our country who have far more to lose come November (and 2012) and yet who failed to express their views in these last months in order to be heard over the virulent spewing done by Tea Party candidates (combined with the sound of Moderate Republicans dropping their moderation in a heap on the floor so they might better jump on the TP bandwagon or get left behind altogether like their companions were in the primaries held so far this year).

And while applauding Lady Gaga, I have to hold my applause for President Obama - because he could stop all this crap right now. He could suspend any further dismissals by the military of gay personnel. He has that power. He could also take a much harder tack by use of 'reconciliation' to get what he needs, or be even more forceful by leaning on those Democrats who refuse to vote as needed. We're talking about Republicans who have made it very clear that they'll vote everything of Obama's down - everything. To me, that means it's gloves-off time for Obama. It's time for him to step up to the plate and start getting tough.

Yes, everyone is disgruntled, that can't be denied (well, except the rich who control our oil, drugs, banks, etc.), but is the current movement within the Republican party the answer to our problems?  If you're thinking yes - well, you live in Fantasyland.

On the other hand, maybe you'd enjoy living in the past - as in centuries past. Maybe you'd prefer a world that wouldn't understand the Constitution if it were written by a five-year old in crayons.

God and Country sound so good, don't they? And yes, most of our founding fathers believed in God; trusted in God, because if they didn't,  God wouldn't be a part of everything from the wording on our money to our Pledge of Allegiance. BUT - the difference is, our [1].founding fathers also recognized that not everyone prayed to the same God (if any god at all). In spite of Texas trying so hard to remove Thomas Jefferson's opinion on this issue, the truth is still out there in articles like the U.S. Constitution On-Line which printed a letter written by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. I'll let you read the letter yourself, but I find that I have to include this segment leading up to the letter itself, showing how much time Thomas Jefferson spent on composing the letter in order to ensure that he didn't insult the Association:

"The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion."

The key words are "...the establishment of religion." In other words, he understood, as did the majority of our founding fathers, that to impose one established religion would result in the same constrictive lives of their own ancestors; those first brave men and women who sailed for the New World and established a pluralistic [2] society; one that became a siren call for those who were, as Lady Liberty so eloquently states via the words of Emma Lazarus, "...yearning to breathe free."

But today, our political 'leaders' (a term I use very loosely) have forgotten the wonder and brilliance of a pluralistic society and the true freedom it provides and encourages. They've forgotten what the Statue of Liberty has come to mean to the world - as so eloquently stated in "Emma Lazarus, The New Colossus":

"...the statue [of Liberty] emitted a new ideal for the United States. Liberty did not only mean freedom from the aristocracy of Britain that led the American colonists to the Revolutionary War. Liberty also meant freedom to come to the United States and create a new life without religious and ethnic persecution. Through Larazus' poem, the Statue of Liberty gained a new name: She would now become the "Mother of Exiles," torch in hand to lead her new children to American success and happiness."

The problem with the Tea Party movement and the Moderate Republicans who are afraid for their jobs, is that they don't understand that separation of Church and State doesn't mean religion can't exist. It doesn't mean those who believe in it are Godless people - just the opposite, in fact. What it does mean is that when the 'church' becomes the State - it must be, obviously, one church. And that's when we have problems.

Stay tuned for part 2 on this subject tomorrow and in the meanwhile, ask yourself a few questions:

• Why would privatizing (meaning allowing a private *business* to take over) Social Security be a bad idea and who would benefit by private business taking over? (this is on the Tea Party agenda)
• Why is something we PAY into - considered an entitlement? Is a paycheck earned for a hard day's work also an entitlement?
• Why does being forced to use your Social Security benefits or Social Security Disability benefits (the ones you've paid into for years) - make you lazy?
• Why are the hard-won rights of the Disabled a bad thing - and who would benefit by the loss of those rights?

This about these questions and we'll compare answers tomorrow....


Footnotes:

[1]: If you want to find the truth about how our forefathers felt on this subject, you'd better start researching fast and keeping copies - the ultra-religious right, via the Tea Party, are quickly revising history or removing parts of it altogether from the education of our children.

[2]: From Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System by J. Scott Harr, Karen M. Hess: "Pluralism refers to a society in which numerous distinct ethnic, religious or cultural groups coexist within one nation, each contributing to the society as a whole."

Jon Stewart agrees with us!

We shall make him an official member of our party (once we have a name) and of course, advertise for him. He's on Twitter but the account that matters right now (sorry, Jon, of course the account for your show is important too *bows*) is "Rally4Sanity", which can be found HERE.

The Purple Political Pontificator Joins Jon in Taking Up the Call: RALLY 4 SANITY!

PS: Pretend the '4' is in white....

Tomorrow's post: Questions that will make you question. *nods sagely*

Is anyone still laughing at the Tea Party?

We shouldn't be, not with the addition of Christine O'Donnell's Tea Party win in the Delaware Senatorial primary and Paladino's gubernatorial primary win in New York. The only question now is: Will the current semi-three party system we've been experiencing since Obama's election (Democrats, Republican and the Tea Party) return to two in November? Will the GOP (the same GOP who, right up until the polls closed in Delaware, were doing their own 'robo' calls AGAINST O'Donnell)  dissolve all appearances of ever being Moderates and embrace the Tea Party as their own in order to win in 2012? 

I say yes, that's exactly what will happen and, as a result, I predict huge losses for the Democrats in November. HUGE. Gigantic. Which means horrible losses for America.
 
Why horrible? Why would that be so unbelievably scary to this writer? Is there really anything wrong with ousting the old timers; the men and women who have held their seats for years doing nothing but bow to their owners, Big Business?

In this particular case, the answer is yes - because it's not an issue about power, politics or money, O'Donnell's race proved that. She had 10% of the amount of campaign funds that her fellow Republican (a man who has never lost a race and is considered a moderate and fair Republican) had to defend his seat. And now, she's going into the race for the Senate against her Democratic opponent with $20,000 in the till (that will undoubtedly grow between now and November - unless she continues to do what the Republican party has accused her of, namely using campaign funds for her own use). And yet - she won. 

They're all winning - because at the core of their movement is something more powerful than money - and responsible for more death and destruction in Earth's history: Religion.

And that's the problem. 

Yes, people are tired of Republicans and Democrats, of the lies, compromises, and the political crap, so never has there been a better time for a semi-third party based on "God, country and We the People" to step in and fill the void. And on the surface, it sounds wonderful, excellent...except....

Yeah. Except.

The Conservative Religious Right has found a stronger voice in the Tea Party  than even the most savvy pundit could have predicted. And if they do indeed win in November and then in 2012, the separation of Church and State will disappear - and the very thing our forefathers feared and tried to keep from happening, will. 

The right to worship as we please (or not, as we please) will disappear in laws based on what the Fundamentalists and their version of Christianity want. And their version will be set gay rights, the Civil Rights Movement, the ADA - and many more rights won in our lifetime - back to the dark ages.
 
IF DADT is repealed before November (it won't stand a chance after), the celebration will last until January, 2013, when the Tea Party President takes his or her oath of office (I'm betting on Glen Beck and Sara Palin) and replaces DADT with something far worse. Something like, "You WILL be asked and you WILL tell and if you lie and make it into the military, you WILL end up in prison followed by a dishonorable discharge." All gay rights currently available - will die (and if Christine O'Donnell has anything to say about it, masturbation will be illegal [sic]).

Even as I watched the news reporting on the September 14th primaries, the pundits on the left were still laughing, still refusing to take this seriously. For God's sake, Paladino WON his primary.  

Paladino.

Voters ignored the proven fact that he used government money paid to him through his business to run his campaign, ignored his sexual escapades, perversions and racists remarks and beliefs - and chose instead to listen to the Tea Party defense and endorsement. So how does one explain how a party based on strong religious mores could endorse and vote for a man like that? Simple: Denial and, as they've been doing since Obama won, listening to lies in the form of disclaimers followed by outlandish accusations against anyone who spoke ill of their candidate.

There's a famous scene from the movie, "The American President" which I think is very current for today's politics - and which should be engraved above the entrance to the Capitol Building and the walls of the White House (obviously in a different format *wink*). The scene comes near the end of the movie where the President (Michael Douglas) is having an argument over his Republican (one who is very similar to the current group of Tea Party members, btw) opponent, Bob Rumson (played by Richard Dreyfus). In the scene, the President is talking with his Chief of Staff (Martin Sheen) and his speech writer, Lewis (Michael J. Fox). Michael J. Fox's character says something to which Martin Sheen's responds:

"The President doesn't answer to you, Lewis."

"Oh, yes, he does," Lewis answers. "I'm a citizen, this is my President and in this country, it's not only permissible to question our leaders, it's our responsibility. But you already know that, Mr. President, because you have a deeper love of this country than any man I've ever known, and I want to know what it says to you that in the past weeks, 59% of Americans have begun to question your patriotism?" 

To that, the president says, "Look, if people want to listen to Bob Rumson--" at which time, Michael J. interrupts with these golden words: 

"They don't have a choice. He's the only one talking. People want leadership and, in the absence of genuine leadership, will listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership, Mr. President. They're so thirsty for it, they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand."

The above is where we are now. The only ones talking are the Tea Party candidates and they're using all the right phrases and words - like Patriotism, God, Country, We the People, and "It's time to take back our country!" (I can't help but wonder from whom). And the Democrats? The Republicans? Nothing. They're all saying nothing and, in all reality, neither is our President.

Of course, what was even scarier in the movie than the lines spoken by Michael J. Fox's character - were the lines written for the President's response:

"Lewis, we've had Presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty, they drink it because they don't know the difference."

I'd hate to think we don't know the difference between the real thing and the mirage, but these primaries have certainly proven that in the absence of true leadership, the people will be drawn to the ones doing the talking and using the right buzz words. And yes, they'll follow the mirage anywhere it leads.

At the end of the movie, the President finally decides to step up to the microphone to say what needed saying about his politics and his opponent.

In 2008, Americans did the same as they rallied in a way they'd rarely rallied before. We went out in record numbers and, united, Democrats and Republicans voted for our first black President. But where are those voters now and, more importantly, where will they be in November? 

Polling results from the primaries to-date show they're nowhere to be found. Republicans have outnumbered the Democrats in almost every primary so far and in several primaries, showed up in record-breaking numbers.

So the question now becomes: Can we do it again? Can we change the current tide, or is everyone too afraid? Too tired? Has all the crap filling the airwaves squeezed the intelligence right out of our brains and confused us beyond reason? 

If so, it's time to shrug it off and act with the power of OUR words and OUR vote. 

And it's time for our President to step up to the microphone.