Republican Moderates: Good For the Nation

I've gone on the record as saying moderates are a good thing for both parties. For the Democratic Party you have Ben Nelson and to a lesser extent; Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and Joe Lieberman who occasionally cross party lines on legislation. For the Republicans, the only moderates seemingly left were Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both from Maine. With Scott Brown's election, it seems being a moderate New England Republican is trendy again.

Some conservatives view this as a sellout on the part of Brown. I don't necessarily think that is the case. Brown's only responsibilities are to the Massachusetts people; if he believes a piece of legislation is something they'd support, he should be under no obligation to conservatives or "tea-party-nistas". Now if we could only wrangle up Lincoln Chafee to come back to the Senate and we would be set!

I think bipartisan legislation can only be accomplished through moderates who are willing to cross party lines for something they believe in. People like Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid may make a lot of noise and show, but in the end, it is in the hands of moderates that true groundbreaking legislation rests.

New Jersey's First District: The Fighting Firsts

New Jersey Democratic Congressman Rob Andrews will be running for re-election in 2010 against familiar nemesis Dale Glading, you may remember Dale for granting this interview to the American Portrait back in 2008. Glading was only able to garner 26% of the vote in 2008 and while he will definitely fare better in the current climate, his chances of election are slim.

Dale writes on his campaign page that with "career politician" Rob Andrews, "not much has changed". Much has been made of Andrews complete debacle in 2008 when he had his wife keep the congressional seat warm for him while he tested the waters for Frank Lautenberg's Senate seat. Andrews tried to claim he changed his mind after deep personal reflection although it was clearly and objectively a bogus story. You may recall me observantly pointing out the fact that Camille Andrews (Rob Andrews' wife and placeholder for his house seat) didn't even bother to put up policy stances on her campaign website. She may be very friendly and nice in person but she was definitely a lousy candidate.

While Glading definitely hits some points home against Andrews, mainly the argument that Andrews has an "insatiable" appetite for higher office, he faces a daunting election against a congressional juggernaut. County Republicans would love to brand Andrews as liberal and socialist in the hopes of it gaining traction with a frustrated electorate, but do the facts back that up? The New York Times (an arguably biased source) brands Andrews as a "fiscally conservative...and socially moderate". Glading on the other hand, doesn't give any hints as to his stances on social issues via his website.

As Glading has cast himself as a conservative, one would think he would be socially and fiscally conservative. This perceived social conservatism (whether true or untrue, he hasn't said anything to the contrary) goes squarely against the traditional New Jersey mold. In fact, New Jersey's 1st congressional district scores a DVI of +12 (Democratic) in the Cook Partisan Voting Index. So while Glading would more than likely be an agent of change for South Jersey, his social stances might be a tough pill to swallow for many South Jerseyans. So while Rob Andrews' actions were clearly questionable, if no suitable candidate attuned to the county's political leanings emerges, it is this blog's opinion he will be comfortably re-elected in November.

Healthcare Reform: Gone With The Wind

I think everyone can agree the cost of healthcare is staggering for someone who is out of work or has a low paying job without benefits. A couple of weeks ago it seemed almost certain we were going to finally have health-care reform. With Scott Brown's election in Massachusetts, it seems like politicians can't get away from the platform/issue fast enough. Nobody wants to hang out their political neck for something as emotionally-charged as this issue.

I can't knock uncertainty, as I don't even know where I stand on the issue. Part of me wants to protect the people most at risk (children, low-wage workers) from the high costs of health coverage and treatment. Everyone deserves the right to have access to top-notch healthcare and physicians. The problem comes with the staggering cost and burden of trying to create a program out of nothing.

The financial cost of the healthcare program is absolutely unacceptable. In my opinion, we should be trying to reach budget neutrality in any was possible. That doesn't mean completely abandoning health care reform, as I would be in favor of the "piece-mail" approach championed by some members of congress that would introduce portions of health-care reform one at a time. The obvious drawbacks to this would be the lengthy time-period for effectiveness to kick in.

Inaction is not an option. Reform needs to happen now, but as they say "Rome wasn't built in a day", neither should the foundation of this legislation. Starting now and getting something done, is better than doing nothing at all. Even if there are members of Congress steadfast in their desire to score political points should the issue fail, there are no excuses for President Obama to not get this done.

The Ultimate Act of Betrayal

I don't know which I feel more upon reading this article; fascination or disgust. If we were to take this article at face value it portrays both John and Elizabeth Edwards as being the lowest possible degenerates of society. As some may recall, I supported Edwards in his early days for the presidency. I liked his personable demeanor and populist platform and thought he was a nice mix of experience and change (see Barack v. Hillary).

To have Edwards invade our televisions to drivel on about standing up for impoverished members of society and then blackball a faithful campaign staffer when the cameras weren't on, really hurts the core of anyone who supported Edwards at anytime. I feel like I've lost a little respect for all politicians today, who can you trust when you don't know what happens behind closed doors?

It's like finding out there isn't a Santa Claus or that the Tooth Fairy will no longer be bringing you cash in exchange for clunkers (teeth). It all boils down to...who can you trust?

What Did We Learn?

I hate it when national correspondents are of the notion that they have a beat on the pulse of a town or city. The Two-Line Pass, a hockey-themed blog, is a great example of this. While covering the American Portrait's favorite team (The Philadelphia Flyers), he had the audacity to make this statement:

"End of an era. Randy Jones was put on waivers as the first step to getting his 2.75-million cap hit off the books. But it begs the question, who is going to attempt to cripple Patrice Bergeron and have Flyers fans falling all over themselves to defend it come Winter Classic time?"

For those who don't know, Randy Jones was probably one of the mildest tempered Flyers on the entire team last year. While he did perform an illegal hit on a Bruins forward, it was hardly of the vicious variety. If you had read the Two-Line Pass, you would probably think him something along the lines of a Marty McSorley or a Tie Domi. So at the very least, you could critize this blog for being grossly misinformed, and at the worst, the author being an enormous a**hole for perputrating the bias against Philadelphia fans. But then again, he's just being another "national" writer, and we do seem to collect them these days, don't we?

Eagles Players Come to Town

Take a look at the sweet picture I snapped, when Philadelphia Eagles linebackers Chris Gocong and Omar Gaither came to the local PNC Bank for a photo opportunity. They were very nice and friendly in person and chatted with me for a few minutes regarding the Eagles.

Nancy Pelosi: Living In America

You may remember Eric Cantor (R-VA) scoffing at Nancy Pelosi's fear of violence in regards to the current political climate. He felt she was "living in a different world". Apparently that world is America, as a U.S. Census Bureau worker was attacked and killed in rural Kentucky. Normally this wouldn't have any relation to the happenings of Washington, except for the minor detail of "Fed" being written on the man's body.

We haven't heard a peep out of Cantor regarding this, nor any of the Republican establishment for that matter. When people carry out signs portraying Obama as Hitler, brand Democrats as Socialist and openly muse as to if the Census will lead to WWII Japanese-style internment, how can they be baffled when the fringe of their party takes it to heart.

Having tea parties is one thing, but people need to understand when they are going too far. The President isn't evil, he is not a reincarnation of Satan, he is not the anti-Christ and he will not eat your first-born. It is ok to disagree with him on the issues but to brand him as if he were a creature out of Grimm's fairy tales is not only misguided, but as the events regarding the census worker have proven, very risky.