On Thanksgiving we are thankful.  But, when a great injustice occurs, it is not time to give in, but to call out for the sake of America. 

That harm occurred yesterday in an interview with the Examiner and Michael Steele, the National Republican Party Chairman.

The interview shows how polarized this country is and how difficult it must be for any of us to have many thanks this holiday season.

Here’s why:

Examiner:  Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana proudly admitted to selling her cloture vote for $300 million in what is being called the “Louisiana Purchase”. Would you stand behind Governor Bobby Jindal if he denounces her tactics?

Tactics?  To use one’s power to obtain the best for the people an elected official represents or tactics?   Mary Landrieu went to bat for Louisiana at Republican Governor Jindal’s urging.   Jindal did not support the health care legislation.  But, he did send language to Landrieu’s office to insert in a health care bill he opposed.  What he did was no different than what almost all elected officials do even though they do not want to talk about it for obvious reasons. 

I believe virtually all Republican and Democrat elected officials will try to obtain something for their respective votes. It is as American as Thanksgiving.  Did Mary Landrieu personally receive money or something in kind for herself for her vote?  Nobody has any proof, whatsoever, to show that she personally benefitted. 

Yet, probably all members of Congress (including Landrieu) received political contributions from lobbyists.  Did those contributions buy any of their votes?   I am sure that Michael Steele would say that no money sent to the National Republican Party or any of its members from industries opposed to the health bill or any other legislation is buying his organization’s or his members’ votes.  So, what did Mary Landrieu do that was any different than any other member of Congress or any political party?  The answer is nothing.  She was doing the Governor’s bidding.  If Mary Landrieu helped a state in need at the beckoning call of Republican Governor Bobby Jindal and if  Steele wants to call that a “tactic”, then perhaps he and his party members should return all contributions made to them since he might be surprised to find out that those contributing or doing so to help influence a vote and for no other reason. 

Michael Steele:  Absolutely I would support the governor.

Incredible.  For Steele to support the Governor to denounce Mary Landrieu would be tantamount for Steele asking Governor Jindal to denounce himself.  When Mary Landrieu received legislative language from Governor Jindal’s administration to insert in the health care bill, Jindal as hoping for the best, but betting on the worse.  He was hoping that Mary Landrieu would vote against the legislation.  He was totally against it.  But, he was hedging his bets no different than many elected officials who have a major problem at home and who want to help their own constituents.

Steele:  That is a testament on what is so wrong with this process on a matter so important as health care. That a senator would stand up and brag about getting not just the $100 million that was hidden in the bill, but for her to go back and barter that up to $300 million is the most distasteful part of the process that bothers people.

If the only reason that Mary Landrieu voted for the health care legislation was to  help her state receive $300 million dollars for a major unfair Medicaid obligation due to Katrina and Rita, then Republican Chairman would have an argument.  But, she was very clear that she was only casting her vote in favor of the debate to go forward, but letting everyone know that when the final vote comes unless there are drastic changes in the bill, she was no guarantee whatsoever.  She actually shares many of the same concerns about the health care bill as does Michael Steele.  The 300-hundred million was just one factor in the vote and many knew about the “statutory language” prior to the vote, especially Governor Jindal’s office who did not openly complain.  So, perhaps Michael Steele should condemn Governor Jindal who actually is working very hard to lift Louisiana from the bad lists to the good lists and is having some success in doing so.  In fact, one way that Louisiana is actually improving its overall economic position is through financial incentives to businesses so they locate or stay in Louisiana.  Some people might call using public money to lure businesses to that state bribary.  Others call it an incentive.    Is it unsavory?  Most economists would say it is a price for states to do business.  So, if states can fund businesses for the public benefit, why can’t governor’s and Congresspeople ask for money in legislation as an incentive for their vote?  Both are for the benefit of the state.  It might be wrong for Landrieu or for any other elected official to vote for legislation only or primarily due to a special request, but, there is no proof whatsoever that this occurred last week.  It would be illegal for a public official to receive money or something in kind for their personal benefit, but again, there is no evidence this occurred last week.  Instead, Senator was attempting to help Republican Governor Bobby Jindal and at the same time, trying to extend the debate so that she could make a bill better for her state.  The only way to do that is by negotiations and discussion.  That is called democracy.  If she and other moderates bolt during the vote on the merits, the Senate might change the legislation to ensure that it passes both the House, the Senate and be signed by the President.  This story if far from over.  If Steele or anyone else has any proof that such as a video or audio or affidavit that something illegal, unethical or wrongful occurred, let him bring it forward.  But, he must remember, Mary Landrieu was doing what Bobby Jindal wanted, assistance with the Medicaid deficiency.  If she did wrong, then, Governor Jindal did wrong. 

As far as “bartering up” from $100 to $300 million dollars, Senator Landrieu received nothing personal for her vote, Steele cannot prove that she “bartered up”.  He absolutely owes Senator Landrieu and even Governor Jindal an apologyWhen you look at that section of the bill, it describes a place that could only be Louisiana, so it’s very clear who they had in mind for the $100 million.

Yes, Michael Steele is absolutely right, here.  The legislation should have been more succinct.

Absolutely, we want resources to go to Louisiana. It is a shame that after all this time, it has not been completely healed since Katrina. But at the same time, you have to balance that with the needs of the rest of the country at a time when we are still in recession, the jobless numbers are going up and not down, and small businesses are contracting not expanding. So that $300 million, along with all the other hundreds of billions of dollars that have been spent for pork barrel projects, become something that you need to be concerned about. I think the American people are concerned. While the idea of those dollars being spent to help those still devastated parts of New Orleans and Louisiana are good,

The suggestion that money for Katrina is “pork barrel” is simply and wholly repugnant.  Perhaps Michael Steele should tell the Louisiana sheriffs, the mayors, the police officers, the fire chiefs, the homeowners who lost almost everything, and he should tell almost every institution in the southern part of the Louisiana which they received “pork” and not assistance to restore a vital piece of the United States and their own lives after a major disaster and after (for some) the breaking of federal levees.  If anyone should be denounced, it is Steele, and by Governor Jindal and by Louisiana Republican Chairman Roger Villere and every elected official and homeowner who received Katrina and Rita assistance largely based upon the fact that Louisiana is very important to the rest of the nation and because the state contributes to the nation’s well-being .  If Louisiana was not a valuable commodity to the US, then, maybe Louisiana should just secede from the Union and become its own country.  I am surely doubtful that the rest of the nation would not like that idea, now would it? 

I think it sacrifices the principle for the dollar. Because the principle is whether or not this is a good bill for the American people and does it really provide what people expect from their health care. If you don’t think it does, why would you look to get money in exchange for what is ultimately a bad vote?

Chairman Steele should take his argument to the Republican party and ask them to sign a pledge with their new “Contract With America” that no Republican elected official will ever ask for anything in any legislation for his or her district (or state) as part of a piece of legislation.  Once he gets each member of his party to take a vow that they will resign from office should they violate that oath, then can Michael Steele preach to the rest of America about what is common practice among states, among members of both political parties.  If he wants to change things in Congress and in the state houses he and his party leaders have the power to make a difference. 

For starts, if we really want full transparency and less mystery in government, perhaps Chairman Michael Steele would take the lead and demand that his political party begin hold all of their sessions with their party elected officials in the open for the public to see instead of behind closed doors.  It would be quite helpful for the public to know what pressures are being upon the elected officials by the two-main political parties.  That type of “real time” TV show would tell us plenty about who calls the shots and why our two parties are so prone to vote along party lines.  Then, and only then would we have any inkling if their public actions are for purely principal or for “party purposes”.

Let’s let the full sun shine this Thanksgiving on the political process by both parties and then we can really talk “Turkey” and give plenty of thanks.