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.