Hypocrisy, thy name is "Republican"

So much has been going on lately in Washington politics that I've been immobilized by indecision about what to say.

In President Obama's State of the Union Address on January 27, the political divide was embarrassingly obvious. Nearly every point the President made that was not supportive of big business or the banking industry was met with stony-faced silence by the Republican side of Congress. Almost without exception, Republicans showed their dislike for this President by refusing to applaud any of the measures accomplished this past year, including reducing taxes for the majority of Americans and putting a freeze on Federal spending beginning in 2011. The freeze actually elicited snickers of amusement from the Right, who apparently don't understand that budgets are correctly set for a year at a time, and that it would be unconscionable - if not impossible - to impose a freeze on a current year's budget.

Then, just two days later, Obama was an invited guest to the Republican retreat, where he gave a speech and then took questions and gave answers, spending almost two hours with the Republican legislators. Several of the questions - as the President correctly noted - were thinly veiled "talking points," laden with untruths, half-truths, and mis-characterizations of current issues. Pres. Obama wasn't shy about calling these questioners out, particularly Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. He acknowledged that partisanship exists on both sides of the aisle, but also pointed out that Democrats made several concessions, especially in the health care bill, in an attempt to gain bipartisan support. He also chided the Republicans for taking such rigid positions on issues that they leave themselves no room to negotiate. As he said, bipartisanship means that neither side gets everything it wants; each side has to participate in give-and-take. And he also told them that many of the ideas they proposed did not pass the test of feasibility from any credible budgetary standpoint. Interestingly, the President was so effective in his refutation of Republican leaders that FOX News stopped broadcasting the event some 20 minutes before it ended.

Additionally, the Senate recently passed a "Pay-Go" bill that was originally supported by Senators Snowe (ME), Collins (ME), McCain (AZ), and Voinovich (OH). The bill was passed despite "no" votes from each of these Senators, when, in fact, each of them voted for this same bill in 2004-2005.

As if all of this isn't enough, President Obama has invited Republican leaders to the White House for an open and televised discussion about the health care bill. Despite repeated calls by these same Republican leaders for the President to include them in televised discussions, they are now backpedaling on both their participation in talks, and on the public aspect of those talks.

And so it would seem that the Republican Party is not just the "Party of No," but increasingly the "Party Against Anything Obama Supports." There are too many sitting in Washington, DC at our expense who do not have our best interests at heart. They care only for the money in their campaign coffers and will work hard to defeat the will of the people as long as they can keep the goodwill of Big Business, Big Banks, and Big Insurance.

Quite frankly, the Democrats need to grow a pair and stop letting the minority party run roughshod over the principles that this country was founded upon. If they want to filibuster, I say let them do it. Let's have nonstop, televised coverage of Republican Senators reading from the telephone book and show the taxpayers what their elected officials think of Democratic Process.

How do you measure patriotism?

In recent weeks, two people who are part of my extended family network, and both of whom are politically right of center, have played what I've come to call "the Veteran card." Both of them served in the military in Vietnam, and both also generously gave of themselves to either volunteer or work in a paid position for their respective law enforcement offices.

Each of them, unknown to the other as far as I know, has made the statement that was along the lines of, "I didn't serve my country in the military and in civilian life to see it become a socialist nation." (In both cases, the subject was government-run health care.) Both of them claim to have performed in a way that exceeds the performance of the average American, and since I know so many who have never served in the military or worked for any governmental agency, they may be right. I would, however, deny that their service gives them any special insight or a more "special right" to their opinion than I have.

I know, for example, neither of them ever suffered the death of a family member in the course of government service. The late Ted Kennedy lost three brothers in service to this nation, and he was the Senate's strongest proponent of universal health care.

Former Sen. Max Cleland sacrificed both legs and an arm in Vietnam, and he supports universal health care.

Of course there are Republicans - Sen. John McCain and former Sen. Bob Dole comes to mind - who have also sacrificed in wartime and who don't support universal health care.

My point is that having served one's country does not confer a specialized knowledge about what is good for the country. It may, and should, inform one's opinion; but each person's opinion should be informed by his or her life experiences, and the validity of those diverse opinions are given voice at the polls.

So if you have served our country in war or peace; if you have served in the military or as a civilian; if you have been a volunteer or held a paid position, I respect what you have done, and I appreciate your service.

It doesn't mean I have to agree with your politics.