With Friends Like These

I began this piece by looking up the alleged Eleventh Commandment,  the one about not speaking ill of fellow Republicans.

I read this on Salon.com.   Which by now should sound familiar to all those observing current events.

Its been a couple of days now since the latest compromise by House Leader John Boehner.  I got the word while running a couple errands, a radio host on one of the conservative national shows was breaking the news, running with the press conference, and then proceeding to denigrate the actions of the Speaker for reaching an agreement with the President on the pay roll tax cut extension.

The thoughts on radio programs, on TV, and in print would be so poignant and profound if those weren't the thoughts we hear each and every time from the word smiths when compromise was reached with this president.  As facts would have it, its been going on a lot longer than during this President's term. Since I can remember the titular leaders of the GOP have been pillaged and beaten by the national press over matters of politics far more often than the Democrats.

Two points aside.  One, I'm not espousing no scrutiny from the national press, I'm just now echoing the thought that there is a bias.  Scrutiny is well, bias needs to be weighed.

Two, rhetorically.  For the biased on the right, why doesn't the Eleventh Commandment apply to you?
Obviously the left has an Eleventh Commandment too.  Never spoken however, more devoutly lived.

Oh, to be sure, and I never used those three words more seriously, to be sure,  there is a leadership deficit in America.  I just don't see it as a deficiency in John Boehner when he compromises on any of these issues.  I see it as a deficiency in John Boehner when he can't grasp the correct tact to use so that when he does compromise its accepted as not a capitulation, but as a reasoned response to unreasonable leadership.

John Boehner's position wasn't a two month extension, it was a year extension.  What's more reasonable?  One year, two months, or nothing at all?  I'm going to allow for the opinion that nothing at all would be more certain for the markets than two months, but most Americans would likely take two months of tax cuts over none.  One year would be the most reasonable.  Obviously?  I guess not, 'cause someone in the White House thinks two months is ideal, and he got an awful lot of support for this idea.  He's also gets less scrutiny on this short term solution.

We do have bias in the media, as a result, truly, I only see what they let me see.  I don't have time or patience to listen to and watch C-SPAN to catch all the words and actions Mr. Boehner threw at this.  Did he say the words that I would want to hear and it just so happens the press didn't convey those words to me when I went looking?  I don't know.

That's part of the problem then too for Mr. Boehner.  While acknowledging he does have leadership weaknesses, and who hasn't, I reckon he has argued well enough for me at times, because he has argued well enough for me at times, that his one year plan is more reasonable than Obama's two month plan.  That problem is the press general isn't giving him the air time and gravitas as the President gets.  Part of that problem is contributed by his own right leaning air wave mavens.

For all the rhetoric that is heard about how stark the contrast is between the right choice and the left choice, when issues get decided, far to often the right pundits sound so much like the left in bashing the GOP leadership, that I've begun to tune them out all together, they aren't helping.

I'm not against scrutiny of Mr. Boehner, yet if we are going to engage in political battle by choosing sides and making careers out of it, as some have don't quite well with,  lets artfully, politely too, lay leadership failures at the feet of those who truly deserve it.

A President who promised so much and spends so much, as to be expected, on his programs and politics is the real amateur in this deal.  A two month extension is the leadership and dramatic change he professes to personify?  Is this where the smart money went in 2008?  I'd laugh if it wasn't so unprofound and less poignant.

To The Democrat Thinking

I got an email the other day, it was short and provocative, it was from a life long, unabashed, unapologetic Democrat.

" Just so you know the Iraq war ends today, the leaders from Iraq didn't attend the cerrmony??? Gee I wonder why?? We did such a good job???"

So I asked back, why? I wonder why too.

"Just like I told you many times before, I never saw an Iraqi on tv saying how glad they were to have us there??? Only you and George were glad???"

Here is a link to a letter from the Iraqi President in 2006.

How did we get here from there?

You have to look no further than the White House. Mr. Obama's White house.

Michele Bachmann said it best, he had victory on a silver platter and screwed it up.

Yet, I don't think Obama was unintentionally degrading the relationship between our two countries. He knew exactly what he was doing, and he knew it would never be questioned by his voting blocks.

The war in Iraq, despite bipartisan origins, became a place where Democrats would never allow a specter of glorious success linger too long. The "failed war plan" mantra began just days into operations, their hand was shown early and they never folded.

Democrats and their cohorts were quite successful in framing the situation, at least to their kindred souls in the Unions, AARP, and Green jeans, as a fruitless mission, destined for failure, and sure to be unappreciated.

And that is exactly what they have today.

Why would no Iraqi leaders be at the ceremonies? Maybe that is just how it was destined to be with a Democrat in the White House.

What should be questioned is how this President squandered a bond like we had, if only for a glorious moment in time, for political purposes, at the cost of so much of our national treasure, both human and monetary.

For years the left complained about the waste of our treasures, well its assured now isn't it?  All that vigilance during Bush's term went to naught as soon as one of their own were given the keys to the office.

Thanks for what?  Being malcontent and subversive for eight years and then oddly quiet thereafter?  Why?

That answer lies in a perplexing disposition that places party above country, rationality subservient to propaganda.

In Response to Glenn Beck

He not busy being born is busy dying.

So I began this post with that line from Bob Dylan's, "Its Alright Ma(I'm only bleeding)" only because it popped into my head just now.  But subconsciously I must know what I'm doing, cause it fits with my thoughts.  Sort of.

I was listening to Glenn Beck today, something that I have been doing increasingly more of lately.  Today Glenn Beck was dedicated to burying Newt Gingrich.

Readers of my work likely know two things about me, one is I'm a Newt guy, and two is I'm not afraid to listening to other points of views and acknowledge that ideas make sense to me that aren't stereotypical of the label I place upon myself, politically speaking.

What?

I'm a conservative, that's my label.  But I have views and ideas that are not going to be found on the Wikipedia page on Conservatism.  I'm O.K. with that.

Glenn Beck maybe not so much.

Glenn's villian du jour are Progressives.  With that in mind, I'm sticking with Conservative.  Don't want to get in the cross hairs of Mr. Beck and his media Empire, I might find myself on GBTV or The Blaze, but not in a flattering way.

So Newt is a Progressive,  Glenn told me so, time and again.  Now I must admit, he had me lmao mocking Newt's self described "Real Politik Wilsonian" label.  But other than that, I was not impressed with his dire predilection of what the fate of our nation will be with another Progressive in the White House.

Obama being one, but not the first, and Newt would be another, perhaps the last.  'Cause we couldn't survive another one....

I just don't buy into it.  I don't buy into the hype and fear he attaches to Progressives.

What if it doesn't turn out the way Beck prophetizes?  Through the years I've heard alot of opinions of what the future holds, and except for my uwavering support in January 2006 when I knew the underdog Steelers were going all the way to the Super Bowl, I've yet to hear anyone nail the future down.

That list includes profession seers as well as professional politicians, and not one has been able to predict the future well enough to be impressive.

But Beck has the corner on the oracle market?  I don't think so.

The reality is, and I agree with him, we got Progressives in both parties, totally immersed in the establishment from both the Right and the Left.

That is where we find ourselves,  and if Newt wants to draw himself closer to the Progressives than I would, that is his business.  As a voter it is mine too, its just not a deal breaker for me.

Here's why.  Acknowledging the influence Progressive have in governing and government, I'm looking for the nuance that separates them.  I'm a small government/balance budget Conservative.  I believe Newt is too.  His track record  is good enough for me.  I also believe Newt sees a bigger role for government on many more issues than I do, and that he'll have ties with people across the political spectrum.

While I usually want less government, I also am a "Real Politik _____"(fill in your favorite politician's name that has gotten things done), so that means I'm not damning a politician for compromising in the goal of getting something accomplished.

I played the less progress is good progress game already, its over, the era of reckoning is upon us and inaction is the only terrifying thought I have of the future.

You see, I have this relatively new belief that typically speaking, a man or woman with a family is less likely to intentionally harm the community he lives in.  I find it hard to believe that certain politicians are only in the arena of public service for the express purpose of destroying the public.

In other words, some people maybe screwing up and their ideas have historically been shown to be fruitless, but that doesn't mean they have bad intentions in the first place.

The Constitution, as Beck places it, is the bulwark against Progressives.  Its either them or It in the future.  Black and White.  We either got the Constitution or we got the Progressive agenda.  I used to be a thinker like that,  but I've been busy thinking.  Busy being born each day.

The Constitution is great, and its the best, and all the platitudes, but evolution of government is what it is.  We got Progressive minds  all over, and we also aren't going to get back to that mythical time when it was only the Constitution and no Progressives.  That time, according to Beck, would be over a hundred years ago, before Teddy Roosevelt.

While there are certain aspects of the era that would be appealing, I'm not sure I'd like it over this era.  I'm not big on government, I'm big on getting out of our hole.

Newt did it in the 1990's.  Label him what you want, or accept his own label. I'm not in a suicide pact, I want progress.  If that makes me a Progressive, I may disagree, but know that I only have the best intentions in mind.

That's living in the here and now, not the painted black future or painted white past.

Rebirth

What I'm trying to do is, not write about Penn State....

So I went looking for inspiration and in the process chilled my hands, which adds to my cooled disposition.

Its getting cold outside, finally. Snow tomorrow? We'll see.

 I came across a small piece on Real Clear Politics.com on the latest hit Diane Sawyer put on Sarah Palin. Pun intended? or does Sawyer go too far herself?

I'm still not passionate yet today. But I did get to thinking about something that Newt is doing that Palin may already of thought about. Something Dan Quayle did not achieve.

Resurrection.

Obviously, politically speaking, Sarah Palin is an ego that is bloodied, beaten, and withdrawn. That she is still targeted by Diane Sawyer provides fresh wounds that may or may not heal, and indicates the mood of the media establishment toward her.

But its not significant anymore, these attacks in the short run. Palin is too damaged to be anything more than a T.V. star for now. Not that its insignificant to be a T.V. star, but its a long way from the White House. 

She may of been closer when she was living in Alaska and the Campaign of 2008 wasn't yet a butterfly in her stomach.

But she's still there, lurking, taking more hits, but giving hits out too. Just like Newt did after he left the House of Representatives.

Obviously its not a complete analogy, Newt Gingrich is a heavier political body than Sarah. His accomplishment in the House had already secured his survival, but not without considerable efforts by the opposition to totally neuter him.

Today, more than a decade later, Gingrich is a front runner for the Republican Presidential nomination. Who would of thought that was possible back when he was slinking out the back door after his unsuccessful attempt to convict Bill Clinton of high crimes and misdemeanors.


A better analogy may be with Dan Quayle, the former Veep under George H.W. Bush.  Up to this point.

Here's what I can believe, cause I think she is that smart, I think she wants to have that second life on the grand National stage that Newt is now living. I believe she has done the political calculations and knows that she has to slow down and recover, not be ambitious, but still show ambition.

I don't know what happened to Dan Quayle. I mean, did he quietly disappear with the intent to never come back? I don't think so, I read his memoir at the time, and though that was twenty years ago, I don't recall him portraying his career as over.  Still he hardly ever resurfaced, and will certainly not now.

Newt Gingrich never gave me the impression he was going away, just that he was slowing down for a bit. Rethinking his brand, as is chic to say now a days.

I think Sarah is smart enough to learn the lesson from these two men.  That's why she isn't going away, and why the likes of Diane Sawyer still take shots at her.

I don't think however, that I'm smart enough to know what she is thinking, like I don't think I'm smart enough to know what Obama is thinking, but I was just thinking none the less.

The Best We Have

Some disparate and desperate thoughts from watching the Debate on Saturday night.

How is it that in my lifetime, the candidates are always smarter than the President. Yet its always one of those candidates that gets the job and then promptly looses all of his smarts.

Statistically, we are going to eventually elect a President capable of retaining all those bright ideas past that magical Tuesday after the first Monday is November. Just don't hold your breath that its gonna happen anytime soon.

But it might, because there were some really good ideas put forth last night, not the least of which is that quadrennial favorite, "I'm going to surround my self with the right people." Not at all like the President himself, who typically seems to surround himself with the wrong people. Coincidentally, this selection process begins sometime on or after the Wednesday after the first Monday in November.

I thought there might be something to this approach when Mr. Santorum promised to surround himself also with like minded people. Right and like minded. How could I fault that promise?

Not to be outdone, Governor Perry promised extraordinary people.

With these bold and game changing ideas, I'm cautiously optimistic that we, our nation, can walk that tight rope we find ourselves on in any number of issues.

I was asking my lovely wife, hypothectically of course, how is it we always elect the best candidate, the most promising option, the oracle of truth, only to find ourselves with so many problems and so long in the making, that could sink our everything. Our Everything.

Newt had a terrific idea, his plan for dealing with Iran would include a multitude of covert actions to massage the attitudes of the radical leadership. Of course the current President isn't doing any such thing.

It seems that we come to the point where we even expect the Commander in Chief incapable of grasping the concept of covertness. He'd tell us if he were, duh.

I thought the most efficient user of his 89 seconds was Ron Paul. He made a lot more sense than Huntsman, who I think got about 3 seconds more.

Am I alone on an island here when I say I wanted to hear the former Ambassador to China for more than thirty seconds on his views and approach to our complex relationship with the rising force in the East?

Instead we got more time from Romney and Perry.

Don't ever wonder why I can't be impressed with many of these news men and women.

Romney seemed the most polished, like many successful candidates before him. Bully you Mitt, bully you. Which is about what I expect if he'd win. Another bullied President, ineffectual and unintellectual.

Which brings me back to Newt. Again, he demonstrated a superiority in many facets, amusingly evident when he out wits the press.

I'm still with Newt, but If I can't have him, then, well if I am going to get screwed, as the critics of the GOP contend I will be as a working man, then it may as well be by a woman.

Judging by her minute and a half, Michelle Bachman seems quite capable of that. More than some of those men up there.

Not My Type

I've been compiling a mental list of how many types of people there are in the world, and its more than two.

I'm letting you in on one of my own personal inner dialogues. Have you ever heard the expression, "There are two types of people in the world, those that...and those that..." Truth is I have a hard time finding just one schism where there are only two sides. There are always more than just two types of people.

But maybe I've encountered, finally, a divide where there are only two sides. You're either with Joe Paterno or you are against Joe Paterno.

That's it, there are just two types of people in the world, for or against Joe Pa.

Let me tell you, so that there is no ambiguity, if you are inclined to pal around, hire, protect, enable, or otherwise allow in your life a pedophile serial rapist, then don't count on me to be in your corner.

I wouldn't want to associate or even be seen in the same room with such creatures, and yes I would judge my friends and acquaintances in accords with my views.

So if you are with Joe Pa, and you're o.k. with the quality of friends and associates he keeps, then you and I are at odds in a singular way, there are just two types of people in the world, and I am absolutely not that type of person.

Adjustments

Its been a while since I last wrote, and for that I must apologize.

There are a few reasons, I left one job and started another. School and after school activities rose above normal. I read a book by Tom Friedman.

I read, That Used to Be Us: How America Fell Behind in the World It Invented and How We Can Come Back, which is where I left of with this blog over a month ago. While it didn't take me all of a month to read the book, it did take longer than usual to finish it.

Frankly, it's a book that no one would like.

No American that is, surely our enemies would love the narrative of the broken system our proud nations is mired in.

I found it energy draining. Until the end, when Tom and I found common ground again, and that was in his suggestion that we vote third party. The idea would be that by voting this way, we affect the thinking of the major parties. We in effect splash the cold water of reality in their monopolistic faces.

Friedman cites a few examples of it happening in the past, Teddy Roosevelt and Ross Perot both ran as third party candidates and effectively moved their opponents off the party reservation.

Personally, I've been liberal before and I have liberal ideas, although nothing too important, for example I can't see any reason why the national government should be involved in marriage, but I am not liberal en mass anymore.

Reading this book, I was beginning to wonder about my conservatism, whether the idealogues and candidates today who profess conservative views are as smart as I thought they were. Have they been adjusting to the times? Have their ideas moved in any manor to adapt to the realities of today?

This is natural and healthy skepticism. I've read many liberal books over the years, and been influenced by the them all, but not one has stirred such second thought in my mind as this book.

I don't doubt much of what Friedman writes, although he positioned Obama as much wiser than I give the president credit for. I do doubt that government is capable of solving many of these problems we face with more government.

Which brings me to Newt Gingrich. I watched my first debate last night. Many of my readers know I am a proponent of the former Speaker of the House. There is no one, not one candidate for president( the current occupier included ) who is as articulate, thoughtful, and accomplished as Newt. He created the surplus at the end the Nineties, he reformed welfare, he created the impetus to end the era of big government.

And he, again, provided me with the optimism and confidence that there are conservatives out there, running for high office, who get it. Who understand the world we live in today, and have contemporary ideas on how to fix our problems with minimal government growth, in fact with negative government growth.

I'll give Newt and any conservative who can inspire me with their ideals seven times seventy opportunities to fix the mess we are in before I'd pull the level for a liberal candidate who would rather place more trust in government than individuals in making the right decisions for themselves.

Its All Nuance

All politics is nuance.

History repeats itself, but for you to believe the narrative, you have to buy into the nuance from filters you believe in. By filters, I mean anyone providing information to you.

Let's be honest and clear, no one, including the President, can be assured of knowing every thing, or even the simple truth. We rely on people to provide information to us. They are all filters.

A filter, by definition, limits what goes through it. Political filters limit the information you are given, so that you only receive the nuance which supports their story.

I'm reading Tom Friedman's new book,That Used to Be Us: How America Fell Behind in the World It Invented and How We Can Come Back and although I'm not far into it, I've been catching myself wondering then why he didn't get behind any of the initiatives of G. W. Bush. Well, of course we know that Bush is a Republican and Friedman is a unabashed liberal Democrat.

Being a liberal Democrat is all well and good, and it goes far in explaining why his talk of the post cold war era begins roughly around 2001. It fits his narrative and filters out the fact that we had a whole decade prior to Bush to do something right, but really didn't.

To be sure, Mr. Friedman and his co-author Michael Mandelbaum don't come right out and say the post cold-war era began in 2001, they merely filter out the 1990's from their story. So far at least.

But in the opening chapters, the authors proclaim that one thing that America is lacking since the fall of the cold war is a common goal, a large mission, a unifying ambition that we could all coalesce around that would reassert that legendary American Can Do Attitude.

So I was wondering where they were when Bush began the War on Terror and its subsequent battles. Of course they were opposed to much of the Bush administration. Its a matter of record, especially accessible from Mr. Friedman writings.

So it maybe too much to ask for all Americans to support war, it is killing after all. But for these two who cite the cold war as an example of our common course and mission, with all its associated killings in third world nations, I wonder why they have a nuance now on the use of American military to fight a prolonged war against enemies both foreign and domestic. The cold war lasted fifty years after all.

Or what about the investment Bush made in green technology or his historic Malaria Initiative.

Surely they could of found something to martial Americans who were necassary opposed to Bush's wars in the above examples.

But no, they didn't. Not then, and they don't recognize the efforts now.

Its all nuance.

However I agree that prior to Bush, there wasn't much put forth from D.C. to address many of our problems that still persist today. They don't say that, but its part of the era that they begin their book with.

That's not to take away from their efforts to identify our common obstacles and provide a solution. My nuance is, read the book, because any ideas to solve our problems is welcomed by me, I reserve the right to disagree in the end though.

A big problem I see in America is that both sides are so nuanced that no matter what the other side does there can't be harmony, the filters won't let it happen. Ironically both sides, from the long perspective of history in regards to partisan politics, are so similiar any more that it is only nuance that separates them.

If they are so close politically, Republicans and Democrats, you'd think we could get more done not less. But its all nuance.

My Immigration Chat

Earlier today I had a conversation with someone near and dear to me about immigration. Our dialogue began and ended at about where'd you expect, but with a little sprinkling of history thrown in.

My wife works at an airport, she been telling me about the plane loads of immigrants coming in and wondering just how in the heck all these folks are making their way here in America. You know, those basic needs questions. Where are they working, how are they feeding their family, where are they staying? Are they speaking our language?

Apparently I wasn't as worked up as I should of been, cause I had to explain myself. I began that all waves of immigration to this country have been met with various blends of disdain, prejudice, confrontation, and pessimism about what this will do to our culture.

As time has gone by the Irish, Italians, Polish, Russian, German, et. al. have all assimilated rather well by the third or fourth generation. I said that sure, the parents and kids coming over may not speak our language, but by the time the grand kids are running around English is primary and likely spoken better than the natives.

Today, assimilation in our culture is complete for many waves of immigration, and those fears and concerns of our grand and great grand parents never materialized.

The Irish Catholics, the Italian Catholics, the Polish Catholic all built churches a hundred years ago and spoke only the mother tongue, much to the chagrin of the protestants already here.

Now only the Baptist and Mormons have problems with the Catholics, and that isn't going away, but is relegated to Sunday afternoon, or if one knocks on your door for polite conversation.

I suspect it will be the same for the Muslim and African refugees arriving now.

So I slowed her down. She is a fourth generation Italian, so it wasn't hard to see my point.

But, and its a big but, all those waves of immigration in the past I spoke of did so squarely of their own accord or with the help of their communities.

They were not getting government hand outs, or preferential treatments. Perks that we both agreed are not now affordable, nor desirable in this time of high unemployment and large deficits.

Do we really want people coming over here whom we have to support with welfare?

Not that all immigrants get welfare, but many do, and I don't agree with it.

I practice an enlightened self interest in terms of my politics, If I'm not benefiting by a government action, or if I'm harmed by government action, I'm not for it. Frankly, I'm not looking to benefit from government, thus I'm typically not for more government.

I fail to see what benefit it is of mine to take in the world's poor when all they endeavor to do is get here and become the U.S. poor.

I'm not alone, I stand with my wife.

Many Americans do to, and this is certainly one of those subjects that I think needs debated openly and honestly amongst us voters. Government needs to shrink, that has been my slogan for years, here is a prime example of where we can cut back. If they can get here and support themselves like my forefathers did, then fine.

If they aspire to nothing more than getting here and living off our generosity, then we have to adjust that attitude, eliminate the appeal of the U.S. somewhat so that unambitious folk don't want to come here.

Unfortunately, neither party has been successful in demonstrating to me that this influx will come to an end anytime soon.

Yet another reason why any pressure on the two party establishment to reform is good pressure, whether from the left or the right.

In My Time

Just finished In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoir.

In wiser times the well written, well spoken bluntness of the Vice President would widely be appreciated. As it is, many are not going to benefit from a attentive reading of Mr. Cheney's story.

Buy yourself a present, get this book and put it on top of the queue.

Its 500 plus pages, but obviously it could be much larger, he doesn't belabor an issue, just keeps rolling along, writing how he saw it.

As an aside, I've read many books by the major players, its uncanny how they are always on the right side of decisions. I mean, for every issue there is one approach to the problem, and then there is the correct approach. Of course the writer is always making the right decision. Perhaps an exception to prove the rule, Mr. Bush's book was, I thought, a little too hard on the author. Perhaps the most honest of memoirs, and the shortest.

With Chaney's book, the players making the incorrect decisions were frequently Ms. Rice and Mr. Powell. While Don Rumsfeld was highly accurate, as expected -- his own memoir will attest to that.

Paint me partial, but I appreciate Dick Cheney, I'm glad he was there when he was there. Of course you wouldn't expect anything else from a memoir, but his narrative is rather convincing in portraying himself at the nexus of many a correct decision.

I really appreciated his well written arguments, the utilization of language, rightly used, simple and concise. Yet intelligently driven.

A way or writing I'd love to emulate, but I usual lack the brevity.

Rumsfeld, Krugman, & Sargent

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/about-that-paul-krugman-allegation-of-911-shame/2011/03/03/gIQAdwBMNK_blog.html

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html


These guys are fantastic! They see demons where there aren't any, I wrote last week of our minds being our worst enemy, consider this example given.

Krugman is crying like a kid who got his argument for more flowers in the schoolyard turned down, when what everyone knew was we needed more physical interaction to get the neighborhood bully to back off.

Really, Greg? Really. " I say it again tonight, I say it again tonight: thank God that George Bush is our president." is your crescendo? Evidence that there was an atmosphere of fear and intimidation created by the GOP after 9/11.

Have you ever heard Jimmy Hoffa speak?

Really. Greg, have you ever heard Jimmy Hoffa speak?

What you quoted were politicians being politicians.

Nothing more, nothing less.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/us/10iht-currents10.html?_r=4&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1315569719-RpR5AuX40tZqZl8xOiUg7g

NY Times will require you to sign on.

Why am I always talking about the Tea Party when we got debates and national addresses to cover?

Because talk is cheap and they always have the right answers, unless they've gotten power, then they have only wrong answers.

We'll see.

But this Tea Party business, this is where the real action is taking place.

I wrote of the pressure this movement exerts on the GOP, its a good thing. Sarah Palin, the first target of the left inside this group, has made progress in cracking open the liberal nut, which has been mostly hostile and blind to the cause.

But she's said it in a way that one of them, and that's a start, is beginning to see clearly. Its not a movement that is in antithesis to anyone, unless of course the shrinkage of government threatens you in some way.

The liberal mind shouldn't be hostile to the Tea Party. Indeed they should be doing the same inside the Democrat Party. Alas they are not.

But Palin, she said it in a way that touched Mr. Giridharadas, who openly admits to not being a big fan. What Palin spoke of was well thought out and presented, yet its not new.

What is troublesome to think about is their lack of observational skills, the gap of honest information earned from independent inspection of the apparatus' surrounding you, that many of our liberal friends may be unaware they are suffering from.

The Tea Party, and the like minded American's who quietly side that way, aren't a malignant condition within the political body, they are more akin to white blood cells that are energized to find the tumor and eradicate it.

Oh, and racist? Don't be silly. At some point in our lives we got to ask ourselves if our perceptions are a little foggy, its a natural maintenance for sane people. Especially poignant if you are finding racists everywhere, which is a behavior someone lacking in fine observational skills may exhibit.

Pressure

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=342485

I think I made some in roads in conversation the other day, we'll see.

It followed a little instigation by me, I must confess. I was testing the Teamster's thirst, has the taste changed to the new tea in the pot, or was it the Kool-Aid they've been drinking for years?

It was the same old high sugar, watered down product.

The article I found above, lends itself quite well to my argument, which was laid in response to the "stupid Tea Party" comments.

A couple things I feel very strong about, one is its statistically impossible to be against each and every. With each and every being objects with little constraints. If you're against each and every action that Obama takes, for example, I think that goes against the statistically probable. I mean, you got to like something. If only one thing.

The other thing I feel strong about is that we got a two party system that is detrimental to progress. One party is corrupt and the other usually inept.

The thing is, for some Teamsters, as it is for some of many groups, being against everything Republican, although statistically improbable, is naturally abundant.

Usually in conversation, I found that the admission "they all lie" is in response to a "gotcha" moment when their irregular disposition does not apply consistently across party lines.

i.e. Why hasn't Obama gotten us out of the wars you hated Bush for getting us into? They all lie.

In the present case, I ran with the idea that with this horrendous two party system we got, where they all lie, why in the world would anyone be against a group that has risen within this structure, whose greatest success would be reformation of what passes now for political honesty?

The Tea Party is it folks, the only movement today that boldly, daringly, and improbably succeeded against an Establishment political party.

Agree with them and you may find yourself on the right of side change in America, we may create a reality where the phrase "they all lie" is meant only to explain the actions of boys and girls.

Disagree with the Tea Party at you own discretion, but it'd be nice for all of us if you went off and created some sort of pressure on your side to clean up their act too.

I gotta tell you though, the Tea isn't bad at all, they are just asking for self-sufficiency.

Is that to much to ask?

Here's a video of Jimmy Hoffa, Teamster Boss.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/05/jimmy_hoffa_at_obama_event_on_gop_lets_take_these_son_of_bitches_out.html

Practicing the politics of Anger.

...All the usual support is lining up behind Obama. Hang in for a close election, his base won't leave him.

It Takes An Amish Village

I got into a little conversation over the weekend about the Amish.

I have always thought they are getting away with something whereby they don't pay taxes, but benefit from government. But by morning I have come around 180 degrees. I think the Amish are getting a raw deal.

We are all of course.

The people with the best deal are in the Welfare estate. Best part about that deal? They don't even vote, others are taking care of that for them. Thus they are the ultimate parasites.

Before I wrote anything, I wanted to look into the Amish tax issue, I found this page: http://www.holycrosslivonia.org/amish/amishfaq.htm#top. This site reveals they pay taxes. Most of the taxes you and I pay, just not the self-employed Amish into Social Security. Yet they also don't benefit from Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.

The Amish practice self sufficiency, and culturally take care of their own in time of sickness and need.

But how much taxes do the Welfare crowd pay? I betcha less than the Amish, and they do get the benefits of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

They mimic a community, but handouts are the economics underpinnings of the community, its more of a Ponzi Scheme.

In retrospect, the Amish are getting screwed. Just not as bad as me.

Which leads me right now to reflect on how our own minds are our own worst enemies, how the only thing holding us back, is ourselves.

The Amish, or myself, or anyone not on welfare, is not genetically different from the crowds who make a living off the government doles. Its a mindset that is preventing self sufficiency among many Americans.

That's bad enough. What worse is how those who speak up against, or run for office opposed to further funding this lethargy are demonized by the champions of this system.

As though the notion of cutting welfare is crossing the line that separates civilized society from the brutal regimes of our darkest past.

If the Amish can make the stand they do by not accepting government dole at all in their lives, while indeed paying a slew of taxes, I think we can put quite a bit more pressure on the lives of those paying much less but taking much more.

We are the champions of work and self-sufficiency, and that is nothing to be diminished. Work is not a blight, idle hands are the miscreants. If we are all working that is progress, if more and more are not working, that is deggression.

Hillary Clinton wrote It Takes a Villageand many a struggling community and liberal laud the idea.

A village I'll acknowledge, but the governmnent I'll refute.

Anger

http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/01/bankrupt-solar-company-with-fed-backing-has-cozy-ties-to-obama-admin/

http://www.quotegarden.com/anger.html

http://bible.cc/proverbs/30-33.htm

From the The Audacity of Hopeto the stirring of anger.

Another reason why I don't think a defeat of Barack Obama in November of next year is a certainty.

His base isn't going to leave him, in the end, they won't be allowed, and it all starts with anger.

He who angers you controls you. This video will anger a conservative, though it will anger its intended audience even more, and they will become protective, and they will vote the right way.

This works both ways. Conservative radio hosts will anger the listener just as well, and for the same ends.

That is what makes it difficult to change peoples minds, and of course they got to change minds from within themselves, anger is going to resist change. It will blind.

It doesn't matter what the topic, choose a general topic important to a general audience. Its a fact that the larger the audience, the simpler the successful message. Plus you gamble big, you win big.

Obama is going to ride the blame bush/racist/reconciler of radical GOP/... messages all the way to the finals next year, and I think its going to be a nail biter.

So how do we switch his base?

Not with anger that's for sure. We can't attack Obama relentlessly, a person not on our side obviously likes something about Obama, we got to respect that. That's the first step of over coming their anger enraged by the liberal sirens.

Just a crack, that's the beginning of it all.

I agree we shouldn't attack Obama on his race, but do we already forget how scornfully Bush was attacked. Each and every day. Even for things he had no way of controlling. I'm just wondering has the criticism of Barrack gone that far yet?

Lets be fair in our time.

I don't think it has.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/barack-buddy-buffett-betting-bank-bailout

Speaking of Barack's Base...

Sometimes we forget how tied up with big business Obama really is.

That to me has been curious. Most pundits proclaim that he's an 'enemy of the free market' system, but if that is the case what is he doing with friends like these?

Or is he fooling them also?

I was writing about Obama's base support the other day, and let me add another to that list that won't abandon him, or at least hasn't in the thirty years I've been paying attention.

That segment of his base are those who have no clue how tight Buffett, GE, et. al., and Obama really are.

Let alone know who George Soros is or how he makes his money...wait a minute Soros does want to wreck economies! Maybe there is something to that whole 'enemy of free market' shtick after all.

Anyways, those supporters of Obama do know something about Enron that I don't know about, and they are really pissed at Haliburton. Thus demonstrating bona fide economic credentials. These folks know numbers.

Do you think they will abandon Obama?

After all, the economy is Bush's fault. Just like 9/11.

I certainly hope I'm wrong about this, but I'm afraid Obama's re-election is just about a lock.

This isn't a position that has struck me like an epiphany, I've been inclined to believe he'll be re-elected and will continue to do so until the day he should actually lose.

There are a number of realistic scenarios and arguments that could line up to create the conditions favorable for an Obama re-election.

First of all, I'm dubious of any talk of Obama losing his base. What is his base? Its a collage of mini bases, and its nothing new. Its the blacks who have historically voted overwhelmingly Democrat for generations. Are they going to abandon him? Exactly.

His base consist of the Unions. Here we have hope. Just like the Unions had when they voted for this guy. But in the end, I gotta see it to believe it.

The Liberals are his base too. Another segment that not in my life have they abandoned the Democrat party.

They are just as steady in their vote for Democrats as the Blacks.

Just the facts.

So I don't see his base breaking up.

That has been my original reasoning for a strong Obama re-election showing.

You also gotta be aware of the traditional presidential scheme to back-load his schedule of achievements to climax with enough time for to fuel his campaign.

What achievements you snidely ask?

Begin with Health Care, which as poorly its regarded on the right, the left will champion it to their benefit.

The economy will rebound. Perhaps my biggest reach, but I return to the re-election shedule, plans were made, programs will commence soon enough to turn the economy around, finally.

And speaking of plans. You reap what you sow. Libya can easily be spinned as a safe and cost effective way to topple governments. Contrasted with the Bush approach that we still have to deal with, nearing a decade later.

Is it any wonder why he hasn't pulled out of Iraq or Afghanistan yet? They've become useful as they are.

Egypt.

Syria?

Could Iran be far off?

Don't think its going to be a lay up to beat this guy.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/warren-buffett-s-tax-solution-won-t-solv

This is a beautiful article to prove a point with.

A reader suggested that he could probably troll the web and find a story or the statistics that would support Buffett and or refute the numbers in this article.

That a little bit of both tax increases and spending cuts is what we need.

I don't doubt that he could find what he's looking for in someone's opinion.

Not one bit.

However, by what margin are they going to refute these numbers?

We're in a deep hole here, to not recognize it as a voter is really a disservice to the idea of a general right to vote.

I'm not even championing a plan or a side, I'm saying that those numbers in my link have to be awfully inaccurate to move me off the idea that slashing government is the first priority.

Increased taxes shouldn't even be a rider on a NEA bill at this point or anytime prior to severe governmental reshaping.

Why punish the wealthy cause the bumbling fools in D.C. aren't half the statesmen they wish to be?

But more pointedly, why would we not recognize that the need to cut government is preeminent?

Are we really that wedded to party affiliation that we'll accept the tax hike plea as the first step in fixing a problem where there is not enough money to tax to fix it with?

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/reid-expects-tea-party-to-fade-away-127677778.html

The above takes you to an opinion piece by a Mr. Glenn Cook from the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Harry Reid is an esteemed Senator from Nevada, so Mr. Cook has the privileged of covering the newly re-elected Senator, entering now his 25th year in service.

I'm happy to reveal that I have wasted no vote nor esteem on this long serving Senator, he's gotten esteem from somewhere, just not from me.

But you'll read that Mr. Reid is now spending that esteem on blocking real budgetary reform all the while continuing the illogical, but self-serving spinning of the Tea Party as a bunch of juvenile detractors and obstructionists who will soon need to grow up and leave the real business of running the country to the trained professionals.

The Tea Party faces its biggest challenge to existence now and through the next fifteen months. They survived a primary and general election, they faced the establishment GOP and have not been whipped. Their sails are tall, unfurled, and full of head winds.

Now they'll face off against the Democrat establishment, and lest the detail be overlooked, the GOP primaries are the perfect spot to quietly sink the ship. Or slice the sails.

The good news is that John Kerry and Harry Reid are taking the charge, handling the knife.

Trust me, this is a good thing. Two long serving Senators upbraiding the heady new kids on the block. Except don't accept their vision.

The Tea Party isn't a bunch of youngster, but just Americans who are still youthful in thinking, in a fresh zest for politics and political reform. Thankfully they hadn't been burnt out from this whorish system years ago. That they are here when needed.

Here is a truth that needs to be disseminated. The Democrats my not like the Tea Party, and the paid bosses will do everything to stigmatize them as undesirable in the minds of their loyalist, but the Democrats have nothing going on to provide an alternative to the GOP's growing Tea Party Brand.

There is an opportunity, like Sean Hannity proffered, to overtake the political opposition for the Tea Party, a The Tipping PointTipping Point.

Little details sometimes matter so much more than their apparent weight, or maybe just the opposite.

A couple of entrenched, long term Senators aren't upbraiding a movement of naive kids who stumbled out of their role, into an arena of politics they have no business being in.

A couple of Senators are exposing a long serving political party that hasn't done much in the last forty years to solve any problems its been confronted with, has only spent tax money frivolously and put priority on the need of government to take more of your money first before reforming.

When encountering a stereotypical negative response to the Tea Party, ask what the plan is from the Democrats.

Little details help reach the tipping point. Why Kerry and Reid, don't they have anyone fresh? Not as fresh as my tea, that's for sure.

Yesterday the White House and Democrat congressman point the finger in every direction but inwards and the market plunge.

Today the the sound of silence. Markets soar.

Please do not disturb.

(with all due respect to Paul Simon)

Obviously I was wrong.

I anticipated that the liberal democrats would blame the Tea Party for raising taxes, when that eventually does happen,

I didn't anticipate that they would blame them for the credit lowering.

Its like a sick patient blaming the doctor for his health.

Or something like that.

And to have John Kerry start the ball rolling, as if he hasn't been there in D.C. for thirty years approving every spending increases and opposing every spending cut.

What a joke.

Its time to rally round the Tea Party. They are the target of the Democrats, they will get the "dumb" treatment.

Every attempt will be made to get the dumb label stuck to them, like Palin two years ago, Bush before that, Quayle before that, Reagan before that...

While I was working out the other day, I caught a little of the Sean Hannity show. Sean was in is usual animated self, the bombastic voice on the edge of the vast right wing conspiracy. Today's the day the left will wreck America, so we need you now more than ever.

But that day, that day Sean said, we were at a tipping point. Conceptually borrowed from the Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference book, Sean enlightened his fellow Conservatives that in the wake of the budget deal, we have reached a point as a movement wherein we have gained the forward momentum, almost irreversibly.

As usual, Sean was engrossed with too things -- historical events to support his arguments, and fervent certainty of his opinions. I agree with Sean most every time I listen, I can't listen often cause I don't agree with his predilection to dire consequences everyday.

As a society we are in bad shape, no doubt. Its not very productive for me to listen to it all the time. I'm glad he's on that wall though, if only it saves me from doing the job myself.

But as to the tipping point reached. I sure hope he's right.

I still expect Obama to be re-elected, and until he isn't I have no belief of my own that enough voters have reached the tipping point.

Yet I like the message, the forward looking and optimistic vision that we have been fighting this fight for a long time, and we've reached critical mass, that political conversation in this land is now directed by the conservative voice, and not the liberal or moderates.

Its certainly the time, as it always is anyways, to push the agenda further, much further.

We need more conversation on the right and correct role of government in this land, and we need to make sure its uncomfortable.

Comfortable conversation hasn't gotten us much. In fact its been counter productive. We have got to take the conservative agenda into conversations and really expose the realities.

Here's a reality that I think we should put on every voters' mind.

Raise your hand if you've been in this conversation before, your talking with an acquaintance and there is a shared lament that there is too much welfare, too much handouts, and that every year there seems to be more.

I happen to agree, I'm fed up with it, and its time we expose the ugly truth to the people who agree with the notion, but who perpetuate and aggravate the situation with their vote.

Before I go further, what I'm expanding upon is a linchpin rationale for my approach to discourage the uninformed or ill informed from voting.

Here's the beef. By and large liberals and baseline budgeting are expanding the welfare state. Baseline budgeting because this a system whereby welfare agencies grow. Liberals, cause, well that's what liberals do, they expend government.

If you want to cite a conservative cause that expands government, then lets villainize that too.

The fact is the people on welfare don't vote. That's a fact. Oh, sure your going to get some people on welfare who make it to the polling grounds on that first Tuesday in November, but usually they have something better to do then, voting for their own best interest isn't high on their list of things to do.

Why is that? The answer is that there are enough Americans willing to do that for them.

There are plenty of voters, not on welfare, who on a chilly November Tuesday take the time out of work or play or family, head out and vote for a candidate or party slate that is going to see to it that more of our tax money is going to people who won't make the effort themselves.

I don't. Any chance I get to vote in my own best interest, I do, when its a vote that is going to work against my own best interest. I choose not to make that choice.

Bluntly, if your a Democrat, and your not on welfare, and your complaining about welfare, then do me a favor, quit voting.

Your voting for people who are too lazy to vote for themselves. Who rely on you to make sure they get more free money. In Pennsylvania, we give them free cell phones now. I know, I live in Pennsylvania. Sean spoke about it too.

If we reached a tipping point, I'd like to see the cell phone program tipped into the abyss.

Now consider this, less than half of eligible voters actually vote. Typically the national vote is split at about 47% one way, 47% the other way, with about 5-6% on third party. That's less than 25% of the eligible voters making the decisions.

That truth is that if can just persuade a small number of the voters to not show up or please just vote responsibly, we can make this tipping point an inflection point.

Look forward to more examples on this blog of how certain voters are empowering politicians who do not have their best interest in mind when setting policy.

I'm inspired, or enraged, by a conversation I had where it was stressed to me that someone who may not know all the issues but votes, is a better citizen than someone who doesn't vote.

I don't think so, voting just for the sake of it, or worse -- out of party loyalty is not being a good citizen. Its also distorting the priorities of our culture in a way where people who don't even make an effort in society are beneficiaries at no cost or investment.

Many a good political commentary contains a healthy dose of conspiracy or even paranoia. Hopefully, this post is both healthy and good.

I've come out against a balanced budget amendment, and with good reason, which I'll expand upon in a moment. Yet I think it would be great if the gosh darn thing were put up for a vote.

Anytime, in this modern age, where we the people have a more direct role in the laws that are crafted the better we are for it.

As a corollary, anytime that we can keep power out of the hands of the bunglers in D.C. the better we are for it.

Keeping power away from the bunglers in D.C. is why we all should be against a balanced budget amendment. Which is not to say we shouldn't be for a balanced budget.

So we got what we had here last week, if I may borrow a phrase.

Last week the Democrats wanted a tax hike and were against a balanced budget amendment.

This week, they compromised and accepted defeat on both issues. How's that?

Last week, the GOP wanted the "cut, cap, and balance", got it, and many a conservative thinks we lost the budget battle this week after the deal with the Democrats. Truly?

Well, there are many reasons why the conservatives feel defeated, expounded upon quite eloquently by many talk radio hosts.

I haven't heard anyone lay out what I'm about to lay out.

The Democrats haven't given up on taxes. Obviously this war isn't over, though the one battle is. The budget deficits are here, they aren't going away, and this deal is scant relief.

What's more, for some peculiar reason, the basic math of spending more than you take in does not equate to cutting what you spend for liberals, it means taking in more, and more, and more, and more.

Orin Hatch said, they love to take money that isn't theirs, spend over what they got, and say we lack compassion because we don't want to give them more.

But its true, although this spending isn't sustainable, even if you taxed the rich to the utmost, budget cuts aren't a serious consideration for liberals. Its so crazy a notion that I have trouble elaborating on it at times.

But why did they cave on those two issues, tax hikes and a balanced budget amendment(at least a vote)?

Because don't think for a minute that they won't love to have a clean and necessary reason to raise taxes all the while pinning the negative faults on the GOP, the Tea Party, and or the Conservatives in general.

With a Balanced Budget Amendment, they'd get that pre-written invite to raise taxes every year.

And whose going to take the blame?

The well meaning political activist on the right who are pushing for this amendment.

They are pushing and they will take credit for a victory if it should so pass, but mark my words, a balanced budget amendment is not what we want, we want a balanced budget.

Unless of course you're alright with your taxes being raised every year the budget isn't balanced. I'm not, and history doesn't have any examples of a nation taxing itself into prosperity.

Having a balanced budget is the goal,

having a balanced budget amendment is not.

Its a very serious constraint to put on the government the requirement to balance the budget every year.

Recessions, depressions, and wars( as if )could necessitate deficit spending.

Although with this government we've devolved to, I'm sure they'd just change the law as they needed. Debt Limit? Really, why bother.

There was a time when I wanted a balanced budget amendment, not anymore.

What I want is one of two things, I'm not picky, and am able to compromise.

I would like a repel of the 22nd amendment, the one that limits the President to two terms.

Or I'd like a new amendment to limit congressmen to two terms.

Even the playing field, then we'd start to see real substantial compromise and change and even fiscal responsibility on a yearly basis.

I think we'd even see some of these two bit dictators come around if they new the American president could be around as long as them. . . and that's a whole different world.

Yea I said it, a couple of post ago, the Obama administration isn't all bad.

Today I'm going to back up what I said, with a little help from Senior editor-at-large of Fortune magazine, Geoff Colvin. Grab the July 25th issue to read the entire interview for yourself.

Mr. Colvin profiled and questioned Vivek Kundra. Who is Vivek Kundra you ask? He's the very first CIO of the United States of America! That's Chief Information Officer.

And you know what he did that is so good, that a staunch conservative like myself can praise him despite his liberal leanings and efforts to elect Obama?

He shrunk the size of government.

Here's a sampler, according to the interview, there are over 2000 data centers in the federal government, Kundra has "plans to shut down 137 ... by years end and 800 over the next fours years, saving $3 billion."

I've been saying for a long time, its statistically improbable to not find anything you can agree with about your political opponent during the course of an administration. It was true during the eight years of Bush, and its true now. If your aren't finding at least one thing you can agree with about the Obama administration, then frankly you aren't paying as close attention as you think.

Conservatives, don't be what the liberals are, find something, if only just one issue, that you can agree with on the president. It will be an aid in tempering your arguments when in disagreement. It will allow you to sound more informed, and if that can't sway your audience, do what I do, encourage your conversationalist to not vote at all.

"What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week. Which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. And I don't like it any more than you men."
-- Strother Martin, Cool Hand Luke

**** SPOILER ALERT DO NOT READ IF YOU'RE FOLLOWING BUDGET TALKS ****
If you haven't heard that line, get the movie, well worth your time.

The budget talks, not so much.

Its a horror flick, with b-rated actors and there will be a climax that is bound to disappoint every viewer. Not at all commensurate with the rhetoric and dire need of reform the poor actors are portraying on screen.

The setting is grand, the legendary capital of a once mighty empire. The plot is strong, the story of a nation's leaders coming together to forge a path toward prosperity and sustainability.

I've seen this flick before, here is what happens.

The stout conservatives, led by a strong man with strong words, will back off their line in the sand and compromise with the weaker antagonist, who in the end will take credit for all the work of the protagonists.

The problem with the budget talks, but not Cool Hand Luke, is that the conservatives are many, by circumstance, not virtue and when one speaks contrary to the rhetoric of the idealogue leader, the message gets compromised. Their position weakens.

The antagonist, the liberal, can be a lone voice, portrayed as sensible and well spoken, not answerable or beholden to any other liberal suggestion.

Eventually, public opinion, which starts firmly with the conservatives, by virtue this time of the elections results, begins to wane. Ultimately a compromise will be struck somewhere between what the conservatives want and what the liberal wants.

In the end, we all lose. There is no happy ending.

Didn't they pay attention to my campaign, he asked.

That part about hope....

What about the part about change?

I'm hard core, I actually expect a politician to do what he says, but Bush's third term is not what I expected.

To be sure, I didn't think Bush was all good, nor as bad as his critics would have us believe.

Obama has kept so many of the Bush policies, that its fair to call his term, this term, the third Bush term.

Its not all bad, and its not all good, where are the critics from the left?

Of course they don't say anything, but they should.

I expected change, I didn't vote for it, but I expected it.

Merely spending more by magnitudes wasn't exactly what I was hoping for.

The same tired old grandstanding on budgets? Just start cutting, and when you've earned some political capital then come at me with the tax the rich stump speech.

Obama and the Democrats could of taxed the rich into obscurity for the two years they shared power, 2008-2010.

But they didn't

Same old politics.

A lot of Americans hoped for change. That's what I remember about the campaign, but there really isn't any hope left, and certainly no good change.

Raising taxes isn't always going to work, at some point the economy isn't likely to respond to higher taxes with more revenues, lets not forget that taxes are by definition a deterrent, so raising income taxes deters higher incomes.

It deters jobs.

Now is the time to cut government, we are at that point where taxes are high enough. I won't accept the notion that taxes are higher in other western nations, let them have their high taxes.

At what point, if not now, do we face the tough analysis of what we as a society need out of government. What can be cut, jettisoned, done away with. What will be kept as a rightful function for inefficient bureaucracy.

We feed the poor, the children, the unable. Great. We give cell phones to the inept. Not so great.

Where are we when government is too big that no one wants anything cut, but something needs cut. When taxes are high enough, and the economy bad enough that more revenues are not a lock with higher rates.

Where and when? In 2011 is where we are, and its time to face those tough decisions that smart opinion makers have been saying are coming for decades.

Taxing the rich always gets my juices flowing, and I'm a far cry from rich!

I've called it a tired old ploy, and it is, but its become a phoenix rising from the ashes of the Democrat defeat in 2010 congressional elections.

It seems that Mr. Obama will use the old slogan to pulverize the GOP during the budget battles, and then, my word, we'll see a close election in 2012, or perhaps a flaming victory for the rejuvenated bird from Illinois.

Taxing the rich isn't policy, its psychology.

Its also a tired old psychology that is still successful at keeping the sheep herded.