Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Is Our Long National Nightmare Almost Over?

Is Our Long National Nightmare Almost Over?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

In the midst of the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt took office and immediately embarked on a whirlwind of activity, rushing bills through a compliant Congress to implement sweeping socialist programs which were promoted as attempts to deal with problems of the depression like unemployment and bank failures, but which largely resulted in extending the economic crisis for years of additional suffering. Following that model, President Obama has attempted to use the fear generated by our current economic crisis to ram through massive amounts of unnecessary spending and socialist legislation designed to fundamentally change many of our institutions and certain to prolong and intensify our economic problems.

FDR was dealing with a much more severe economic situation than we currently face, but many of his extreme measures were actually less extreme and considerably less expensive than what the current administration is implementing. Even so, his honeymoon period lasted only a little bit more than 100 days, starting with his inauguration and ending in the last week of June with the passage of the Frazier-Lemke Farm Bankruptcy Act. After that, Congress and the Supreme Court and the American people had grown weary of unjustifiable economic experimentation and shut him down.

Obama has not attempted to launch as many different programs as FDR, but the cost and scope of his efforts may be even greater. But as happened in June of 1933 for FDR, there are signs that Obama's "honeymoon" period is coming to an end.

The most significant sign is increasing resistance inside his own party in Congress to the programs he has been advocating. On his most recent major initiatives, the energy and health care bills, large numbers of Democrats have become "blue dogs" balking at the huge expense and fundamental societal changes which those bills would generate. The bills have been watered down and heavily debated and are at real risk of not passing at all or passing only in an emasculated and unrecognizable form which doesn't meet the standards which the president has been stridently demanding in his increasingly shrill and angry statements.

It is quite clear from his increased efforts to appeal to the people for support that Obama realizes he is losing momentum on these issues and is running out of political capital. This is reflected in his rapidly declining strength in the polls. It's not so bad that his personal approval rating has dropped from 78% in January to the low 60s today. That's still pretty good. But his job rating has dropped from 78% to 55% and support for his specific programs has dropped more dramatically. Support for health care reform has dropped from 57% to 49%, opposition to his handling of the economy has increased dramatically from 34% to 46% and opposition to cap and trade has risen from 34% to 46%.

Right now the numbers still break Obama's way, but in all of these polls there is a clear trend of a swing of 10-12 points against Obama in a period of about four months. That's a longer honeymoon than FDR got, but it is clear that it's coming to an end. In his Wednesday press conference Obama seemed shrill, disillusioned and desperate, ultimately giving in to congressional demands for delay on healthcare.  Just as the old saw "healthcare delayed is healthcare denied" is true about the rationed care we would see under ObamaCare, it looks likely that deliberation delayed may mean legislation denied as well.

Calling this Obama's Waterloo as some have done may be overstating the case, but there is reason to hope that the summer of 1933 will repeat itself and Congress will reject the remaining budget busters and recess fed up with being pushed around by the administration and return to do-nothing business as usual when it returns.

Don't get too hopeful. There's a caveat. When it became clear that Roosevelt's programs from his hundred day honeymoon did not save the country and in fact probably contributed to the economy becoming significantly worse, after a year of waiting to see what would happen, public desperation gave FDR a second honeymoon period in 1935 where he was able to pass some of his most destructive and draconian legislation, including the Social Security Act, the Public Utility Holding Companies Act which put public utilities under government control, the National Labor Relations Act which massively expanded the power of unions and his single most expensive program the Works Progress Administration which cost the equivalent of close to a trillion dollars when adjusted for inflation.

The current economic crisis is not as bad as the Great Depression was, so perhaps Obama's somewhat longer but less intense honeymoon period will end without a sequel and we can move on to clear some of the deadwood in Congress in 2010 and see about eventually reversing the worst of the damage and putting the country back on a sound economic footing before Obama exits the White House like a second Jimmy Carter in 2012. At the very least we can hope that his period of governing almost by fiat is over and some rationality and bipartisanship will minimize the damage henceforth.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Anything – ANYthing – to bash Obama.

    Obama didn’t get a ‘hundred-day honeymoon’. He didn’t even get a week’s worth. But since he’s still breathing, the Far Right sees it as their patriotic duty to tear down everything he’s ever supported, as in, “if Obama wants it, it must be wrong!”

    But let’s help you a little bit with your history. Dave, I recommend (again) that you read some history, because you obviously (1) don’t know how bad the economy was when FDR took over, (2) don’t know what he did to fix the economy, and (3) don’t know that the Depression was for all intents and purposes OVER by ’36, and then we went into a recession again in 37-38.

    AND how about a short list of what FDR did within those first hundred days? Ever hear of the ‘alphabet agencies’? Like the CCC? Or the TVA? Or the FDIC? Sure you have – and I suspect that your next post will contain claims that America would have been better off without any of those three agencies.

    But growth through the ’30’s was painfully slow, I think you’d agree – unemployment didn’t truly improve until WWII…which brings me to the best point of all!

    How many times during recessions have we heard “we just need a good war!” – hm? And WWII certainly put America to work, didn’t it?

    But what are the Nuts and Bolts of HOW WWII put America back to work? War Department contracts…also known as GOVERNMENT spending.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Obama didn’t get a ‘hundred-day honeymoon’. He didn’t even get a week’s worth. But since he’s still breathing, the Far Right sees it as their patriotic duty to tear down everything he’s ever supported, as in, “if Obama wants it, it must be wrong!”

    No, Glenn. If Obama proposed something sensible I’d be all for it. I might even support genuine, rational healthcare reform that is far more radical than what he’s asked for.

    But this healthcare bill is an abomination and cap and trade is almost as outrageous. And the bailout disaster is a monument to governmental folly.

    But let’s help you a little bit with your history. Dave, I recommend (again) that you read some history,

    Do you think that maybe after getting two degrees in history and teaching it for almost two decades I might just have read a little bit about that period?

    because you obviously (1) don’t know how bad the economy was when FDR took over, (2) don’t know what he did to fix the economy,

    Of course I know how bad the economy was and I know the difference between the beneficial programs he implemented and the ones which prolonged the depression into the long recession you mention, most of them completely unnecessary.

    and (3) don’t know that the Depression was for all intents and purposes OVER by ’36, and then we went into a recession again in 37-38.

    Did I write anything here about 1936? My discussion of FDR here ends with 1935. And the belief that the recession you mention was caused by FDR’s programs has become widely accepted among historians — the kind of thing you learn when you read more history than your freshman textbook.

    AND how about a short list of what FDR did within those first hundred days?

    I can give you quite a long list with dates and everything. I happen to have my lecture notes for that class on my desktop.

    Ever hear of the ‘alphabet agencies’? Like the CCC? Or the TVA? Or the FDIC? Sure you have

    Ah, the CCC – catching crickets in bags and planting trees in the desert without irrigation. Have you ever heard of the FERA the NIRA the PWA the AAA and the gold surrender? For every good thing FDR did he did two which had terrible unintended consequences which should have been forseable.

    - and I suspect that your next post will contain claims that America would have been better off without any of those three agencies.

    No, of the three you mention I’d only fault the CCC. The others were good ideas.

    So yes, I’m with you. Obama really is much worse than FDR was because he has lest justification for his actions and has done less good.

    How many times during recessions have we heard “we just need a good war!” – hm? And WWII certainly put America to work, didn’t it?

    You certainly move in strange and hawkish circles. Plus we already have a bad war. That seems more than sufficient in that department.

    But what are the Nuts and Bolts of HOW WWII put America back to work? War Department contracts…also known as GOVERNMENT spending.

    Government spending for a purpose, not just handouts to corporations and unions.

    Dave

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    I’m a syndicalist socialist, and watching Obama’s attempts to “fix” America’s economy – while successfully driving it into the crapper – are enough to make a grown man cry.

    Syndicalist socialism, which builds a country by giving workers a governing stake in the private enterprises that they themselves organize and manage, is very different than statist monopolies that ruin the economy.

    The pre-state economy here was a syndicalist socialist model, with the histadrut hapoalim ha’ivrim the organization of Hebrew workers in the country, as the driving force. They organized the health care system, Bank haPoalim (providing capital for business development), Sollel Boneh (construction), Egged (bus transport), the day-care system, in addition to providing support to the collective farms (kibbutzim) and collective farm villages (moshavim) that provided food.

    But when independence came, the system rapidly got a statist flavor to it (Israeli socialists worshiped Stalin) – and the economy went right into the crapper. The killer of statist systems – favoritism and lack of accountability – eventually did in most of the kibbutzim and moshavim, but that did not happen till the 1980’s. When the government stepped in to manage the economy, the result was that in order to get a job, you needed to belong to Mapai and produce the red membership card; Jewish immigrants from the Middle East, who could care less about Marx, Lenin or Stalin, found themselves discriminated against and pushed to the bottom rungs of the economy. In addition, there was severe food rationing for the first few years of the State, and finally ben-Gurion had gto go hat in hand to the despised Germans for help.

    In the mid ’80’s, the Labor Party, which is what the Mapai morphed into, eventually ditched its socialism altogether and aimed to go after Arabs to get the votes that Jews, sick of the corruption and favoritism (and long-lasting hatreds that leftists pursue) refuse to give them. But we remain with the paternalism and bureaucracy that statist socialism engenders.

    You Americans are just starting down this sorry path. Good luck to you!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dave –

    As I pointed out a long time ago, there’s a big difference between knowing history and understanding history. Many times I’ve seen men with advanced degrees who do not really understand their chosen field – frankly, many conservatives would probably make that claim of Obama’s expertise on Constitutional law.

    All a degree really means is that (1) you had the opportunity and the determination to finish a degree, and (2) you are more likely to understand your subject.

    Do you have a better understanding of history than do I? Perhaps you do – your education would indicate a greater likelihood that you do…but your claim that FDR’s efforts extended the Depression and worsened the peoples’ suffering indicate otherwise. Time will tell, won’t it?

    My next article (after the one presently pending) will juxtapose some interesting points made by Will Durant and Niall Ferguson – and you are of course more familiar with them than I.

    On a side note, earlier this year I passed by a used book store and saw the complete set of the Durants’ “Civilization” on sale for $125 and decided that was money well spent. I would like to hear who else you would recoommend.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    As I pointed out a long time ago, there’s a big difference between knowing history and understanding history. Many times I’ve seen men with advanced degrees who do not really understand their chosen field – frankly, many conservatives would probably make that claim of Obama’s expertise on Constitutional law.

    I actually agree 100%. I’ve run into many academic historians who know the facts but are incapable of explaining how events tie together or the underlying forces behind them or how events of hundreds of years ago connect to events of today. It’s actually an area which I have always considered one of my strengths and which my brighter students have particularly commented on. I seem to have a knack for conveying an understanding of the “why” of history rather than just the “what”.

    Do you have a better understanding of history than do I? Perhaps you do – your education would indicate a greater likelihood that you do…but your claim that FDR’s efforts extended the Depression and worsened the peoples’ suffering indicate otherwise. Time will tell, won’t it?

    Ah, but this is not what I claimed. Yes, I believe his policies delayed the economic recovery, but I never said he didn’t alleviate the peoples suffering. I freely admit that Roosevelt was a master at providing inspiring leadership and that his programs did a lot to keep many people distracted and positive and even somewhat more comfortable in the face of disaster.

    But our difference here is one of philosophy and economic theory. I believe that if Roosevelt had taken a different approach people might have suffered more in the short term, but would have been back on their feet sooner overall. It’s entirely debatable whether a longer period of somewhat less intense suffering is better than a shorter period of greater suffering. Maybe even a matter of personal preference.

    On a side note, earlier this year I passed by a used book store and saw the complete set of the Durants’ “Civilization” on sale for $125 and decided that was money well spent. I would like to hear who else you would recoommend.

    I grew up with the whole Durant series in our house and read it more than once. It probably had some sort of perverse negative impact on me. I also spent way too much time reading and rereading Churchill (The History of the English Speaking Peoples) and H. G. Wells (The Outline of History), both of which owe a great deal to the work of Thomas Carlyle (History of the French Revolution, History of Frederic II of Prussia) which I also found very influential.

    But maybe my favorite historical work when I was young was an incredibly obscure book called The World in the Middle Ages by Louis Adolphus Koeppen who was a historical ethnographer and wrote (and then rewrote twice) just this one book, but it’s an amazing attempt to write history from a completely non-chronological perspective which I still find fascinating. I can read through it and find obscure events and facts I’ve never seen anywhere else.

    Dave

  • Baronius

    Obama’s honeymoon has been less productive than FDR’s, but longer. Maybe because Obama is incompetent, but has a more compliant press?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dave –

    …but which largely resulted in extending the economic crisis for years of additional suffering.

    Excuse me – you said ‘extended the suffering’, not ‘worsened the suffering’…but for the life of me I don’t see a whole lot of difference between the two.

    [having a better understanding history is] actually an area which I have always considered one of my strengths and which my brighter students have particularly commented on. I seem to have a knack for conveying an understanding of the “why” of history rather than just the “what”.

    I think you’d have to agree that all self-proclaimed cognoscenti (myself included) would say the same about themselves, and you and I will simply have to agree to disagree.

    On the Durant series, I’m surprised at your opinion of it, because in the first volume is a manifesto of sorts for libertarians. But at any rate, I will keep my eye open on the book by Koeppen – sounds interesting, and I appreciate the recommendation.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius –

    ‘a more compliant press’? Like Jeremiah Wright? Like ‘first-time-I-was-proud-to-be-an-American-gate’? Like the current brouhaha over ‘cops-acted-stupidly-gate’? Like the slowly-creeping-into-the-MSM ‘birther’ movement?

    If a president does a lot of stupid things, he’ll get a lot more negative press. Can you imagine what kind of press Obama would get if he had a series of ‘Bushisms’ like Dubya did?

    The ‘liberal press’ paradigm is a strawman, always has been. If the media had been doing its job, we’d never have gone into Iraq – but they had been browbeaten into submission by the right-wing frothing-at-the-mouth machine after 9/11.

    By the way, did you know the government spent MORE money investigating Clinton’s dalliances than they did 9/11? Considering the FACT that such government investigations are almost always the result of pressure from the media, does that comparison evince ‘liberal bias’? Or something else?

    If you want to see a lot less ‘liberal bias’ in the media, get the conservatives to stop doing dumb things like supporting illegal invasions, torture, racist remarks and e-mails, and the whole series of sex scandals that seem to plague the oh-so-moral conservative politicians. There are almost NO current similar scandals among the liberals that can compare, with the possible exception of the New Jersey money-laundering club (which also included several Democrats and at least one Republican politician)

    Give the ‘liberal press’ LESS ammo, and they’ll shoot at you LESS. If the liberals gave the press MORE ammo, they’d shoot at the liberals MORE. That, Baronius, is the way it works.

  • Bliffle

    Dave states as a premise the cant passed to him by the uber-fuhrers of the right:

    “In the midst of the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt …socialist programs…resulted in extending the economic crisis for years of additional suffering.”

    Actually, the depression of the 30s was the result of 19th century abuses of Robber Baron corporations which culminated in the 1890s and finally led to total collapse in the 30s.

    It’s true that WW2 was the pivot point, but not for the conventional reasons one hears that war is the health of the nation. It happened because FDR socialized the USA to fight the war.

    A lot of FDRs programs in the 1932-1935 era didn’t work, but some of them did (SEC, FDIC, WPA, Glass-Steagal,…), although they weren’t enough to turn things around. What they DID do is raise awareness of US citizens to common interests for palpable down-home benefits.

    Under persistent and powerful pressure from conservative forces that hated infringements on their privileges of rule, FDR retrenched in 1937 to placate them and things got worse. Notice: things got worse when FDR acceded to business interests and backed off.

    In fact, had things continued as they were, the economy would have continued down, the Nazis would have overrun Europe entirely, the Japanese would have overrun Asia and there would have been a final struggle with Russia with no outcome boding well for the USA. ABombs would have been developed by japanese, germans or russians, perhaps even an ABomb war on some other continent (we had no incentive to develop weapons because we were pacifists and were separated from our enemies by gigantic oceans, so we were safe, everyone thought), and the USA, which was a decidely pacifist country at that time, would have stayed out until some superpower somewhere had come to take over the dregs of our broken and broke society.

    But the idiot race-arrogant religion-drunk warriors of Japan decided that they should take back the hawaiin islands. They KNEW that the americans would never fight back because the americans were just soft playboys who wanted to play on the beaches and surf. They KNEW that the japanese air force controlled air power and could bomb at will until there were just a few american deadenders left as a weak insurgency that they could cut up at will (hmmmm, that sounds familiar).

    So the idiots bombed pearl harbor. And the next day Germany declared war on the USA!

    Then FDR socialized the USA to wage war, and everything turned around.

    People were ready for it and accepted it. Regardless of the frequent failures of FDRs ideas, everyone knew someone in the WPA, etc., and were aware of the benefits of communal social action, and the successes were enough to swamp out the failures.

    American citizens were ready to do what had to be done, whether it was enlisting in the army, buying war bonds, or enduring rationing.

    It was harder to convince the american industrialists who were the capitalists and rulers of the day.

    They only wanted to play for pay. FDR approached the shipbuilders of america, who allowed they might be able to build 4 ships a year, total, for their usual markups. But a troublemaker in Oakland who had made a name for himself in other manufacturing areas said he could build 400 ships a year by using Henry Fords mass production methods. His name was Henry J. Kaiser, you made have heard of him. He got the contract: for costs plus one dollar.

    FDR socialized the country, but he didn’t call it socialism because of the public dread for Russian Communism, so we called it “the war effort”. Everything was done for The war Effort. FDR told the auto companies “no more autos, only war products, for costs plus one dollar”. That’s why there are no american cars with 1942-1945 model years (except for one vagrant 42 chevy that was made from inventoried parts).

    Ford balked. It took nine months to get them fully on board. By the end of the war they were making one bomber every 54 minutes. Cost plus one dollar.

    GM balked. They never did get fully on board. they made tanks, etc., but they never closed their factories in Europe that made trucks for Germany (used to carry jews to extinction) and even swung a deal to keep their european plants off the 8th air corps european bombing lists.

    Important business men signed up to work on war management for salaries of one dollar per year.

    When the war ended everyone wanted (apparently) a return to normalcy. But it could not be. Who wanted to return to the 30s? The depression was horrible. FDR had force built a gigantic industrial system, and now it sat idle. And we had 20 year old kids who had piloted B29s for 50 missions with responsibility for 20 crew members who were expected to go back to being a soda jerk (as dramatized in the movie “The Best Years Of Our Lives”).

    So we diverted the monster industrial machine we had developed For The War Effort to making consumer products like refrigerators, cars, and even homes. We also socialized the universities with the GI Bill that put those achievement oriented GIs where they could do some real good after they had been trained to take enemy fortifications and fly into deadly flak. Even if they didn’t come from the right families.

    We didn’t really start to pull out of the depression until about 1950 when those GIs and their wives who had worked in factories as welders and skilled crafts-people started to make their presence felt in society.

    As true-blue americans with a healthy distrust of communism (and thus socialism) we drew back the effects of The War Effort and re-established capitalism.

    American capitalism was saved by FDRs War Effort, and it was the mainspring for our tremendous post-war growth.

    Eisenhower (a lousy tactician but a brilliant strategist, the only general who could have beat the Nazis) built on that growth largely by defying the traditional business community and taking practical steps like building the trans-continental highway system in spite of corporate opposition.

    FDRs real genius was trying out a lot of new ideas in 1932-36, seizing the War Effort to build a gigantic industrial system, and picking Eisenhower to lead in Europe.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle


    Actually, the depression of the 30s was the result of 19th century abuses of Robber Baron corporations which culminated in the 1890s and finally led to total collapse in the 30s.

    Bliffle, no one who has studied the subject at all believes this claptrap. So tell me. Exactly WHAT did the robber barons do to cause the depression?

    Was it J. P. Morgan paying off the national debt at 0% interest? Or perhaps Andrew Carnegie donating $500 million to charity? Or was it Andrew Mellon giving up his business career to work in government for free? Maybe it was the universities given massive endowments so they could educate those who couldn’t afford tuition by Stanford, Vanderbilt, Mellon, Carnegie and scores of others?

    Or maybe you’re just parroting anticapitalist nonsense fed to you with a spoon by delusional fools like Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill.

    Dave

  • Bliffle

    I’ve never read anything by Chomsky or Ward Churchill.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Dave,

    Read “A Century of War” by William Engdahl. Read the analyses of Jewish writers here (as opposed to traitorous scum like Chomsky) like Joel Bainerman, the head of the Judea and Samaria Chamber of Commerce.

    You’ll see that the “robber barons” of the late 19th century founded the Council of Foreign Relations in the early 1920’s and the actions of these same robber barons brought down your economy – more than once – in the 20th Century. They are also behind the “military-industrial complex” that Eisenhower warned about – too late, of course.

    The problem with you, Dave, is that you are terribly conventional in looking at history. Reality just flies by you.

  • Arch Conservative

    “I’m a syndicalist socialist, and watching Obama’s attempts to “fix” America’s economy – while successfully driving it into the crapper – are enough to make a grown man cry.”\

    Ruvy. It’s like watching a monkey fuck a football!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    bliffle –

    Gotta disagree with you about the Japanese. Most of them believed that if they didn’t win the war by 1943, that they wouldn’t win at all. Most of them had no illusions about out power.

    The main reason they went to war was because of the sanctions America put on them, cutting off many of the raw materials they needed (especially oil) to continue their conquest of China. They figured it was better to go to war over the issue than to be forced by American sanctions to end their war in China.

    But don’t think for a moment that I feel sorry for their government. Their people deserved pity, and it is a tragedy indeed that we firebombed – HAD to firebomb – their cities into ashes (the atom bombs only accounted for 2% of the total bombing damage on mainland Japan), but it was better than if we’d invaded them. THAT much goes without question.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Ruvy, you;’ve been listening to the Birchers again. The CFR is hardly as nefarious or as powerful as you suggest, and the only robber baron involved was David Rockefeller. Their era was largely over by the time the CFR was founded.

    Dave

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Who said the CFR is nefarious? Representing the interests of the richest businessmen in the country is nefarious? Come, come, now!

    It’s not that the CFR is “powerful”. They argue amongst themselves like any bunch of academics. But they are all over like a bad smell, and you can’t get anywhere in the American government without either belonging or paying some kind of lip-service to them – like you do….

    They represent the governing elite and its views in America.

    Birchers tend to see communists and socialists under every bed and behind every mirror. That sounds like your writing, Dave. If I had five dollars for every time you’ve called the Democrats in the States “socialists”, I could buy myself a new computer! Most Democrats can’t tell Lennon from Lenin and haven’t a clue what socialism is.

    Now, when I look under the bed, I see my slippers and my shoes. And I don’t look behind a mirror to find a socialist. I just look at the fellow in the mirror when I shave.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I don’t need to look under my bed for socialists either. I can see them on TV every day. Communists too for that matter.

    The difference between me and the Birchers is that I don’t think that David Rockefeller was a communist and I can tell the difference between international capitalists and international socialists.

    Oh, and I’m not nuts.

    Dave

  • pablo

    Now this is a discussion that I just might join, seeing as how several people are discussing my favorite new world order group the CFR. Not to mention Nalle up to his usual tricks of denial, and and arrogance.

    I also see that the illustrious staff at Blogcritics 4 months later have done nothing to improve the interface. (I suspect this last sentence will get deleted however, since free speech is occasionally condoned on this site, provided you don’t criticize the layout.

    I will think it over before offering my two sense worth.

  • Nails

    We await it with bated breath.

  • Ruvy

    Oh, and I’m not nuts.

    Considering the things you’ve said about me, I’ll view that as an admission that you are, Dave. I never called you nuts, BTW. The denial of a non-existent accusation falls from your own er “lips”, as it were….

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Hello, Dave, it’s me — the broken record. Our long national nightmare won’t be over until we do a wholesale cleaning out of Congress. It dawned on me this morning that all my rants about members of Congress not even comprehending the legislation they pass is but a mirror of the electorate. How many voters actually RESEARCH the records of those they send to Congress? Every two years we throw the same bums in because they’re from our neighborhood and “it’s not my neighbor that’s messing up in Congress, it’s everyone else!” A wholesale shakeup of Congress is akin to a political nuclear fallout in Washington. That’s what America needs, pure and simple.

    Let’s look at the Blue Dog Democrats, or as I like to call them Falwell Light. The Blue Dog Political Action Committee has quite an impressive list of donors like:

    3M COMPANY PAC
    ABBOTT LABORATORIES EMPLOYEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
    AFLAC PAC
    ALTRIA GROUP, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ALTRIAPAC)
    AMERICA’S COMMUNITY BANKERS COMMUNITY CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
    AMERICAN ACADEMY OF FAMILY PHYSICIANS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
    AMERICAN ACADEMY OF OPHTHALMOLOGY INC POLITICAL COMMITTEE (OPHTHPAC)
    AMERICAN ACADEMY OF OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY ENT PAC
    AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AAJ PAC)
    AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL UROLOGISTS – AMERICAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION PAC (UROPAC)
    AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NEUROLOGICAL SURGEONS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (NEUROSURGERYPAC)
    AMERICAN BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AKA AMERICAN BEVERAGE PAC)

    These donors just scratch the surface! Follow the money trail, folks. Members of Congress sell us out every day and we’re clueless.