Talk talk

I've been away from my blog for a couple of weeks as I wait for the US Congress to do something important. Checking in with them today, I see they still haven't gotten our troops out of Iraq, still haven't taken meaningful action on global warming, still haven't done anything to ensure the safety and efficiency of our public infrastructure, still haven't passed any legislation on universal health care (though they are starting to schip around the edges).

But they did accomplish something that is, apparently, even more important: they passed a resolution chiding MoveOn.org for hurting the feelings of Gen. Petraeus. And in the spirit of bipartisanship, they're working on a similar resolution for something stupid Rush Limbaugh said.

What is it about talk radio and partisan activist groups that they deserve so much priority? I'll concede that I rarely listen to any of these mouthpieces. When I turn on the radio, I lean toward classic rock, country, or classical. I find Rush Limbaugh and Air America to be terribly boring, repeating the same things over and over and over again. I see no reason to respect their views any more than, say, those of my shy next-door neighbor. They have a bigger microphone but it doesn't make them any smarter.

The purpose of these organs of the partisan infrastructure, is apparently to keep the faithful motivated, by keeping them addicted to adrenaline and bile. I guess this is supposed to make them more likely to donate and volunteer. But I'm not so sure. My experience is, it makes them tired.

I received an email yesterday from a local conservative talk radio host, wanting to know if I could suggest a Democrat willing to be the bull in her bullring, to "debate" her on the issues she finds most compelling (such as, when are Democrats going to stop killing puppies). Sadly, I can think of people who would jump at the chance. But I won't encourage them. Not a single persuadable voter ever listens to such drivel; in fact, any open-minded voter with half a brain would run screaming from talk radio.

No more protection for me, thanks

US Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff thinks freedom is frivolous. He would rather build steel and concrete walls on our borders, send threatening letters to employers, and check our documents.

Chertoff says he is frustrated by the growing number of "people who say, 'Yes, protect us, but not if it inconveniences me'"

He says he will launch a campaign to spread a message of shared sacrifice "in as plain English as I can, as often as I can and in as many places as I can" from now to January 2009, when his tenure will end with a new presidency.

At first blush this looks like a change in policy, since Chertoff and his friends still haven't asked us to share in the sacrifice of paying for any of their paranoid security programs so far, especially Bush's war in Iraq. Instead, they are still borrowing and asking our children to pay for it.

But is anyone really asking Chertoff for more "protection?" His brand of protection is the same type that was offered to the citizens of the old Soviet Union during the reigns of Stalin and Khruschev. Chertoff wants to build his own Iron Curtain.

Looking at the track record of his "protections" so far, I don't see a whole lot of payoff from the loss of freedom. If these "protections" were working, we would see our government turning away from fear, expressing more confidence in our future, finding ways to restore the freedom they have taken away. There would be less need to ask us to give up even more liberty. I wouldn't be sitting in an airport at this very moment hearing the tired announcement that "the Homeland Security threat level has been raised to orange."

Chertoff has had six years now to show that his approach to "protection" will make us safer. That's quite enough. By his own admission, by his orange "threat level," he is telling us his massive government program has failed. Time to move on.

Don't take us for granted

A feature story in today's Los Angeles Times highlights Douglas County in describing how unaffiliated and even Republican votes can't be taken for granted in the coming presidential election. LA Times reporter Peter Wallsten, who spent several days in the Denver suburbs the week before last and spoke with several of us, noted the change that's in the wind.

Here in Douglas County, the state's Democratic governor won nearly 50% of the vote last year -- a major achievement, considering that fewer than one in five voters here are Democrats and that President Bush had won overwhelmingly in 2000 and 2004.

After describing how Republican strategists had until recently counted on the support of emerging suburbs such as ours, the article describes what we have been seeing every day.

But talk today to Donna Howe, 49, a [Highlands Ranch] mother of two who backed Bush in 2004, and a dramatic setback to that plan emerges.

Like many of her neighbors, Howe is an independent voter who is frustrated by the direction of the country, nervous about national security -- and open to a Democratic candidate "with good ideas on healthcare and a reasonable plan to deal with the Iraq war."

The same holds for Jim Tuccio, 44, who lives a few streets away and blames Republican mismanagement of the economy for strangling the mortgage company he once worked for, costing him his job.

And it's not just the unaffiliated voters who are looking our way. Quoting a leader in an Arvada megachurch:

"I'm still a Republican, but I'm very close to being an independent," said Phil Waters. "I'm closer to the middle than I used to be because of the way the Republicans have screwed things up."

And public opinion research also explains why we should expect a good year for the Democratic Party in 2008.

Surveys by Pew have found that far fewer voters now identify with the Republican Party. Where the two parties had roughly an equal hold on the electorate in 2002, now only about 35% call themselves Republicans or independents leaning toward the GOP, compared with about 50% aligning with the Democrats.

Moreover, independent voters are shifting their outlook on government, Pew found, putting them more in line with the Democratic Party in their concern about income inequality and belief in a government safety net for the poor.

Even some of the GOP's most ardent backers -- supporters whom Bush's campaign courted heavily in 2004 -- are less enthusiastic about the party, among them Latinos and women in suburbs and exurbs.

I expect we'll see more of the national media here in the next 14 months. The political climate is changing, and we're at the center of it.