I'd like to make some sense out of today's S-CHIP vote in the House of Representatives. I'm convinced there are dozens upon dozens of varying agendas going on there, not any of them actually aimed at helping children or improving medical care.
In reality today ended with a meaningless stand-off between Democrats who "think they have a winning issue" and Republicans who "think they have a winning issue." How uncool is that?
The financial division between Republicans and Democrats is really rather small. And the current S-CHIP program is generally regarded as good, although it is unevenly implemented and virtually ignored by almost 1/3rd of the families who could enroll their children.
Nobody brings this fact up because neither Congress nor the President can actually make people become good and caring parents. Still I would have loved to hear Congressman Pete Stark rail about that instead of making bizarre, stupid, insensitive, meaningless and inflammatory statements about President Bush about the increasingly successful military occupation of Iraq.
Which is something else I don't understand. The near brilliant surge strategy of General Petraeus is really working. By virtually any objective or subjective measure, the situation in Iraq is improving. Why doesn't everybody admit that and then continue the real debate about the wisdom of a continued occupation and viable exit strategies.
Why do most Democrats have to mimic Harry Reid and state "I believe … that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything," when it so very clear that Reid is simply wrong?
Reid's idiotic approach allows Republicans to state with obvious accuracy that the Democrats are "invested in defeat."
Why can't my fellow Democrats say, "Wow! The military is doing a great job. And General Petraeus is a genius. Can we go home now?"
I can't even follow Reid's logic of implying that we're losing and our enemies are kicking our butts, so we should give up. That argument not only flies in the face of the current events, it turns the public so strongly against Congress that Bush ends up look better than the Congress.
But let's return to our discussion of Darfur. Oh, you didn't even know we were talking about Darfur, you thought we were talking about S-CHIP. But we really weren't. You see Congress doesn't actually give a rat's ass about S-CHIP. If they did they would compromise with President Bush who has already signalled he will compromise generously.
Nope Congress really doesn't care about S-CHIP, no matter how big the crocodile tears shed by Pete Stark. Nope. Congress members just want a "winning issue." That's also why Congress refuses to solve the Social Security Disaster, which is now only about 5 years away.
And it's why this article today is about Darfur. You see Darfur is only about death, war, murder, rape, starvation, suffering, slavery, corruption and oil. Not a single "winning issue" the entire deck of cards.
So Darfur is up to you, the readers of this blog. Congress isn't ever going to actually pass the The Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007 (SADA). Not a "winning issue." Don't even hold your breath waiting for hearing.
But you ultimately have a lot of power. Tell your mutual funds to divest PetroChina, a Chinese oil company whose parent company, CNPC, fills the coffers of the Sudanese government and helping fund the its actions in Darfur. CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE.
If you'll put enough pressure on Wall Street and on Congress saving lives might actually become a "winning issue."