Regardless, it appears Democrats have the votes they need and passage is inevitable. Over the past couple of days, I’ve watched the reactions of several different factions involved in the debate.

As expected, members of the “Tea Party Movement” have expressed outrage at the bill and out of frustration have started directing their anger at the politicians involved with ramming the bill through. NBC reporter, Luke Russert, tweeted earlier that Tea Party activists were hurling racial slurs at  Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC), one of the more visible faces in the health care debate, and other Democratic politicians. It’s unfortunate that some people feel the need to resort to ignorance to voice their opposition. Clyburn and other Democratic politicians are making a huge mistake in supporting the current bill, but it has nothing to do with the politicians’ race, hurling racial slurs at politicians will not prevent the bill from passing, nor will it help reduce the size of the Federal government.

Another group I’ve followed reaction from is the intellectual elitist/Hollywood crowd. This group, largely made up of people who have made a lot of money from doing virtually nothing–either through trust funds, inheritance or bad art–feels guilty for having so much and doing so little. This creates a void in their life and they spend their free time–something else they have plenty of–searching for ways to give their life meaning, supporting health care reform gives their lives’ this meaning. After all, they believe everyone will now have free health care and that a perfect utopia cannot be far behind. This group is ecstatic. While I strongly disagree with this segment of society, they’re so far out of touch with mainstream American society that I cannot hold this instance of bad judgment against them. They lack the proper knowledge to fully understand the practical implications this bill will have on American society.

Without a doubt, the most smug group are the Democratic politicians. Power drives politicians. This goes for Republicans as much as Democrats, but the Democrats have control of both houses of Congress and are the party responsible for this health care bill. This bill was born out a hunger for power, but sold to the American people as a humanitarian necessity. Simply put, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama could care less how much the average American is paying for insurance premiums, nor do they have any real interest in the number of Americans currently without health insurance. These politicians care only about power and health care reform provided the perfect opportunity to control over a large portion of the American economy currently run by the private sector. This group is walking around D.C. right now, chest stuck out, nose stuck up, fake smiles chiseled on their faces, overjoyed that their dream is nearing reality, soon they will have power our Federal government has never seen.

Then there’s me. I’ve made it clear from the beginning that I don’t believe the Federal government has any role to play in health care reform, unless it’s removing itself from the equation altogether. While I do believe reform is needed, I don’t believe that the Federal government is the proper to agent to usher in that reform.

But what about the poor people without health insurance? Our nation is filled with the most generous people on the face of the planet. I have no doubt that, if provided with sufficient tax credits, American people would gladly increase their charitable donations to churches and other altruistic organizations. People run charities a lot better than the Federal government.

When I look at this health care bill, I am saddened by the unabashed bigotry of some of the bill’s detractors. I’m offended by the bravado of the elitists on the East and West Coasts of this nation, who look to the government to solve their personal issues, at the cost of millions of average middle-Americans. I’m disgusted by the egos of the Democratic politicians, so hungry for power, that they’re willing to totally destroy our constitutional Republican form of government, which has worked so well since the founding of our nation. Most importantly, I remain resolute that this socialism starter course will not take hold in the bowels of the Americans people, but rather be discharged as the filthy excrement it is. The first big BM? November 2010.

It seems that some elected officials make the mistake of assuming that we live in a democracy, when in actuality the United State is a constitutional republic. Other politicians profess to understand the distinction, yet continue to govern as though in a simple democracy.  On Friday, Republican members of the Texas State Board of Education voted to adopt new social studies and history curriculum that would, among other things, refer to the United States government as a “constitutional republic” instead of a “democracy”. Ironically, they relied solely on a democratic principle–the simple majority–to ram through the curriculum’s most controversial elements.

At the heart of the “Texas Textbook War,” is the attempt on the behalf of cultural conservatives to inject their beliefs into the textbooks. This includes their belief that the United States was founded on “Judeo-Christian values,” studies of the role of conservative political action committees during the 20th Century, and an ultra-conservative interpretation of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960′s. While there is definitely a time and place to debate these ideas in the classroom, they would be taught as fact if the current curriculum survives a final vote in May.

Not surprisingly, the attempt to radically alter the way history and social studies are taught in Texas’ classrooms has generated intense opposition from Democrats and many Republicans. Earlier this month, two of the board’s most outspoken cultural conservatives, most notably Dr. Don McLeroy, lost Republican primary elections to opponents who oppose this curriculum. McLaren remains defiant in the face of defeat, and vowed to push through the curriculum before relinquishing his seat, a maneuver that would make Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama smile.

The biggest difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic is the allocation of protections of the minority from the “tyranny of the majority.” The Constitution serves as the primary guarantor of the rights of the minority, but Republicans on the SBOE seem to reject that notion as well. On Thursday, they blocked a measure introduced by a Democrat that would have taught the importance of “separation of church and state” as contained in the First Amendment.  While Republicans claim to support the idea that we live in a constitutional republic, their actions indicate they favor a simple democracy when the results further their agenda.

Students should be taught the difference between a “democracy” and a “constitutional republic.” The nuances between the two forms of government seem to baffle even the most astute politicians. Elected officials have the responsibility to ensure balance exists between competing ideas in the classroom, but must understand that one extremist stance does not balance out another extremist stance. Perhaps educators can use the examples of Democrats on health care reform and Republicans on textbook adoptions as examples of the dangers of simple democracy and to teach the protections provided by a constitutional republic.   Until then, we the people must remain resolute in combating faulty logic wherever it may occur in the realm of politics. Our freedom and liberty, not to mention our children’s future, depend on it.

Really?

This proves my theory that these zealots are not interested in democracy, but rather in living in either a theocracy or an idiocracy.

Do evangelicals not realize that “separation of church and state” actually protects them? If there were no “separation of church and state,” and Christianity was allowed to be taught as truth in the classroom, there would be nothing in place to stop a more progressive brand of Christianity being taught–one that might challenge their kids to question their parent’s narrow interpretation of Christianity.

Also, not only does the First Amendment guarantee the ”separation of church and state”, but also the “separation of state and church.” In other words, it prevents the Federal government from coming into your church and telling you what you may preach and how you may preach it.

Many of the early immigrants to this country came escaping countries with state sponsored churches. Why would we want to revert to the practices of England?

You ask me, there is a lot of value for both conservatives and progressives, Democrats and Republicans, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc. in the “separation of church and state.”

I said it during the Bush years and I’ll say it again, Christian extremists are scared to death of the First Amendment, not only because of “separation of church and state”, but also because of the guarantee of “freedom of speech.” In the end, that is what this argument is about.

Many conservatives approach American history in similarly naive fashion that I approached Born in the USA as child, hearing only “USA! USA! USA!”–refusing to dig deeper into the legends surrounding our nation and its founding. No where has this been more evident than in Texas’ State Board of Education’s recent hearings on selecting new textbooks. Due to Texas’ large size, decisions made by our SBOE play a large role in determining textbooks used in classrooms across the United States and the story has captured the nation’s attention, with cable networks devoting entire shows, spreading misinformation and depicting Texas as a state held hostage by religious radicals.

Sadly, this narrow mindset is not limited to politicians. Indeed, this disease has spread to the administrators in school districts throughout the state. In college, a friend of mine applied for job as a history teacher at a school district in rural East Texas. During the interview, the principal told my friend that, if hired, he was to teach “…the United States has never been wrong in any armed conflict” and “…that the United States has made no mistakes as a nation.”

I love this country and I vote Republican more often than I do Democrat, but the audacity of these religious zealots and cultural conservatives who have hijacked the Republican Party sickens me. We can only hope that voters sent a message to some of these ideologues in the recent primaries when they sent Dr. Don McLeroy, the Rapture Right’s vocal leader on the SBOE, packing, choosing instead Thomas Ratliff, a man with a strong pedigree in the traditional wing of the Republican Party. Unfortunately, McLeroy has promised to not go quietly into that good night, choosing instead to take an approach not too different from the Congressional Democrats’ approach on health care reform, attempting to jam an unpopular agenda down the throat of the people.

While I firmly believe the United Sates is the “greatest” nation in the world, we are not without faults. In order to learn from our nation’s mistakes–and as a nation we have plenty–we must study those mistakes. In addition to ignoring causes cultural conservatives find repulsive, the SBOE seems to gloss over many of the dark shadows creeping in our nation’s and state’s past, unlike Mr. Springsteen.

Is there bias involved with the publishing of a textbook? Yes, there is no such thing as unbiased writing.  Every author, no matter how good their intentions, has a belief system and this belief system will seep through their writing.  In order to ensure balance, more power should be placed in the hands of local schools districts, administrators and teachers to supplement textbooks with ancillary materials. In this age of hyper technology, where schools are wired for Internet access, it’s easier than ever to find scholarly material to serve as a counterpoint to any material presented in a textbook.

One final observation, I’ve read a lot of quotes from the extreme right-wingers on the SBOE stating their desire to see an emphasis on this nation’s “Judeo-Christian values” in social studies textbooks. Let’s be clear, what these people really mean to say is that they want an emphasis on the values of the evangelical Christian church.  These people think they can just capriciously add the term “Judeo” in front of Christian and be considered progressive. Don’t be fooled, these people are not friends to the Jewish community. They only use the term “Judeo” to seem open to other faiths. In reality, their world is big enough for only one faith road, a road they seek to force us all travel, whether we want to or not.

• 10 – Number of years since I voted in the Republican Primary. I last voted in the Republican Primary during the 2000 Presidential Election. No, I did not vote for George W. Bush.

• 362 – Number of people who voted in the Republican Primary in my precinct. Living in a heavily Republican neighborhood, I imagine the numbers in the Democratic primary were much lower. It really is disappointing that so many people refuse to exercise their right to vote, especially on a day with such significance as Texas Independence Day.

• 50 – There’s a 50% chance that I’ll cross the aisle in the general election and vote for Bill White, the Democratic nominee for governor.

• 62 – The number of races on my precincts ballot, one of the most expansive ballots in my memory.

• 7 – Number of contested races on the ballot.

• .74% – Margin separating Geraldine “Tincy” Miller and George M. Clayton for the District 12 Representative on the State Board of Education, one of several pivotal races for the State Board of Education.  Clayton represents a change from the Taliban like forces that have made a mockery of our education system.

• 5 – Proposition 5 on the Republican Primary ballot asked whether the Republican Party should adopt a position favoring legislation requiring a doctor to show a patient a sonogram prior to performing a “medically unnecessary abortion.” I’ve remained consistent in my opinion that there is too much government in health care. I have been a vocal opponent of health care reform and have attacked all efforts to inject government in areas best served and controlled by private enterprise. I’m amazed at the hypocrisy of members the Republican Party–the party of limited government–who attacked Democratic attempts at  health care reform as an example of an overreaching government, yet feel we need legislation forcing doctors to perform a sonogram on a woman seeking an abortion. This proposition violates the two principles I hold dear–free enterprise & privacy.

Over the past two decades, I’ve become all too familiar with the politics of both Perry & Hutchinson. Nothing that either candidate could say in the debate would change my perspective, the only real difference between the two is that Hutchinson is less interested in legislating Levitical law.

Minutes into the debate, the candidates’ contrasting styles became evident.  Perry, nicknamed “Governor Good Hair” by a local media outlet, lived up to his nickname, dressed to the nines and presenting himself as a confident and competent politician. His style was well suited for the “good ol’ boy” network of oil men, timber men and ranchers whose deep pockets have kept him in office.

Hutchinson looked nervous, distant and unfocused, yet still very stately.  The debate confirmed what the Perry campaign ads claim–Hutchinson is Washington. Without a pre-prepared speech, she seems uneasy and out of place. Yet there is enough sophistication to appeal the “blue blooded”, old world Republicans. However, there’s not enough there to appeal to the rural voters of Texas.

Medina, on the other hand, came off as an average Texan, outraged with the current administration’s handling of state affairs, full of populist fervor. She is the type of candidate who will play well in the rural areas of the state, but struggle among the white collar crowd. Yet there was something about her I found enticing. Coming into the debate, I had been intrigued by her libertarian stands on taxes, but conflicted by her association with the Tea Party movement–a movement whose affiliation with fringe elements worries me.

I must say that she impressed me. However, I was disappointed with her response to the “gay marriage” question. I find it hypocritical for someone to claim to be a civil libertarian and then to invoke their religious values to campaign against gay marriage. The only redeeming part of her whole response was that she felt the government really had no business in marriage at all, that it was a spiritual institution that should be handled by churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. I find this answer to be somewhat easier to swallow, knowing that there are several progressive minded congregations that would welcome the opportunity to marry gay couples. However, I feel very strongly that gay couples deserve the same protections under the law that straight couples enjoy.

All things considered, Medina won the debate and probably my vote. While I disagree with views on gay marriage, none of the candidates running for governor in either party support gay marriage, therefore that issue will not be a deciding factor in who gets my vote. This was the last debate before the primaries in March, so there’s not much time left for the candidates to change my mind. When I examine the issues across the board, Medina is the only candidate who provides real solutions and not just empty rhetoric.

Even though Brown ran his campaign as a referendum on the pending health care legislation and won, Democratic leaders insist they will continue to push for reconciliation of the House and Senate bills, claiming it’s the “will of the people”. Normally, when a politician uses a generic qualifier like “will of the people,” he or she implies they have a mandate to fulfill.

But how does a politician determine a mandate?

Most pundits agree that a third of this country leans to the right, a third to the left and the other third somewhere down the middle. Regardless of the candidates, you know that the right leaning group will vote for the Republican candidates and the left leaning group will vote for the Democratic candidates, which means whichever candidate can win over the largest chunk of the final third of the voting block will win the election. This group of voters have been labeled “moderates,” “independents,” and perhaps most eloquently, the “silent majority.” In most elections, candidates attempt to identify an issue where their position will appeal to a much broader segment of this voting demographic and political pundits will label their obligation to follow through on this campaign promise as their “mandate.”

There is no empirical evidence that a majority of this key voting population referred to in the statement, “the will of the people”, supports the Democratic plan for health care reform. I have friends in every range of the political spectrum–from the Right of Rush Limbaugh to the Left of Vermont’s self-described “socialist” Senator, Bernie Sanders, and everywhere in between. Of these people, the only ones I know who support the Democratic plan are people who would have voted for Barack Obama, or other Democratic candidates, regardless of their opponents, based solely on the (D) behind their names. In fact, all the empirical evidence (i.e. polling data, town hall meetings, etc.) I have seen shows a majority of the independent voting population strongly disagrees with the Democratic health care agenda

The Democratic Party’s decision to stubbornly push an obviously unpopular health care bill, in spite of mounting political casualties, hinges on the logically flawed argument that this legislation is the “will of the people.” In the absence of clear empirical evidence, this argument assumes that more of the independent voters voted for Barack Obama, and Democrats in Congressional races in both 2006 & 2008, based on their positions on health care reform. The argument does not account for the number of independent voters who voted Democratic in the races simply out disappointment with Republican majority rule, the number of Obama voters simply caught up in the cult of personality surrounding the figure or any independent voter who cast a Democratic vote in 2006 or 2008, without once considering the candidates position on health care.

As the Democratic Party continues to ignore the real concerns of this silent majority, they have gradually raised their voices in opposition, but their screams appear to have landed on deaf ears. Perhaps the Democratic Party should try a more honest approach and describe their attempt at health care reform as the “will of the Democratic Party.” At least then they would begin to acknowledge that it is a majority of their Party, and not a majority of the American population, that desires to see their attempt to nationalize health care in the United States succeed.