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.

A couple of themes I've been sharing with people lately.

One is how I'm so unimpressed with physically sculptured young men with nice clothing who buy their convenience store items with a welfare card.

And that I'm not surprised or disappointed so much with how our leaders act, its how we voters act that is sad to me.

For eight unceasing years I heard so many people complaining about 30 and 40 year old problems, but now they don't cry anymore! I presume that the fact a Democrat occupies the White House gives those malcontents solace enough to shut up?

Yea like that is helpful. If you can't get your own party to address your complaints, why for any reason would someone of the other party, again I presume who doesn't share you concerns, be the one to address them?

And they get angry because a Republican isn't addressing them! Get angry with the
Democrats who stoke the anger and discontent when they are out of office, while in office they do nothing.

Until the politicians receive more pressure and uproar from their own voters(which ever party that be)we aren't going to solve any problems. If a politician feels safe with his or her loyalist he or she is complacent. If the loyalist are as unhappy as the loyal opposition, then something will get done.

"What do you think of this," asked my wife while showing me an email that points out that Mr. Obama does not use American flags nor the traditional red, white, and blue that past American Presidents have staged with at press conferences.

The email in facts contends that the current resident of the White House uses tradition Muslim colors in stead, and quite on purpose.

In my now typical indifference I answered that's his prerogative.

Its really not indifference, its cynicism.

I don't like it at all. Just like I don't like much of what he is doing, or not doing for that matter.

Especially the bowing to foreign leaders.

But in order to live in sane complacency, I've been viewing my government as the biggest horror/tragedy story of all time on the big screen.

Its a real frightening tale of corruption and ineptitude abetted by a grand facade of security and faux vision.

When your expectations are low, as the quality of our leaders mandate, it shouldn't be an enraging moment when the star of the show can't deliver the imagery and on-screen strength of a mighty empire.

I've heard politics are for bad and ugly actors.

Evidently so.

Whats all a do about the Mosque site in NYC?

Isn't freedom of religion a constitutional right in this country?

Don't act like a liberal and massage the argument to fit your bias.

Some one had a sign that read Muslims build Mosques where they conquer, yea and so did every other religion too.

Frankly, I'm not particularly fond of the idea myself, but it seems to be all paper worked and processed.

The government couldn't allow this to happen if it were wrong, right?

Recently Ursula Burns(Xerox CEO) was asked about the state of education in the U.S., she replied "Very, very, very poor."

Further more:

"It's one of the most important structural problems we have in this nation. The world is full of opportunities -- everyday there's something new that you can do. . . We are structurally creating an underclass that will be hard to fix. If we don't have people who can create value, they will be servers forever. This is not an insurmountable problem. . . If you look at the list of the top nations and try to find out where we are in reading, math, and any science, it is stunning. I don't look at the list anymore because it's an embarrassment. We are the best nation in the world. We created the Internet and little iPods and copying and printing machines and MRI devices and artificial hearts. That's all science and engineering. Who's going to create those thing?"

By now all this shouldn't be so stunning to anyone, but I like the quote. It is embarrassing after all.

Recently I read a book on Presidential facts by Dr Knowledge (Knowledge in a Nutshell) where he informs that Theodore Roosevelt had a simple mantra, to lead a strenuous life.

Coincidently, old T. R. was called a Progressive back then, 100 years ago. Today Liberals increasingly wish to be called Progressive.

While one could draw a few comparison I'm sure, I'd rather draw the distinction that so called Progressives today don't champion anything remotely strenuous.

Despite, and perhaps in spite of, the many wealthy who are drawn to the Democrat party and the liberal idealogy, in practice the left today are more intent on conspiring to increase the nanny state than they are inspiring self-esteem, self-motivation, and hard work.

Improving our schools and our collective intelligence? We could use that kind of progress.

I was reading a Fortune magazine blurb reporting on the apparent increase in happiness across America.

I talk politics, so I'm, by nature, cynical about any metric based on people's opinions.

Is it coincidental that more American's are happier now and that there is a new President?

Here's what my mind's eye is seeing: I'm seeing a lot of Democrats answering that question in the affirmative, "Yes, I'm happier."

I envision a lot of Republicans say the opposite, "No, I'm not happier."

This is a topic that could use a lot more developing, but considering nothing has substantially changed in the last 2-3 years, and you gotta wonder why people are happier now.

In fact, all of our long term problems have only gotten worse. More deaths in wars, more deficit, more debt, more unemployed and 'dropping out' of the work force.

Even health care reform won't kick in right away for most of us.

Why are people happier?

My theory is because the squawking and cackling of the news media and Liberal leadership has unceremoniously stopped, many Americans are freed from a negative tyranny that prohibited them from being happy.

But a lot of Conservatives and Republicans where quite unhappy with Bush back then too. We all had a lot be unhappy about, the metric reflected that.

Today, Democrats are allowed to be happy.

A lot of people are just happy anyways, so there is a steady base.

And many Conservatives won't be unhappy just because some people on the Right want to play the same game the Liberals did for the 8 years of Bush -- keep a steady stream of negativity rolling.

I'm part of that last group.

The metric reflects our happiness right now.

I would hope that the Democrats and Liberals who don't pout and whine so much anymore, will realize how good they have always had it, even when their President didn't have a 'd' next to his or her name.

As for the Conservatives who are unhappy now.

The Christian among you should remember your faith and the agnostic remember this too shall pass.

Don't give the politicians so much power, influence, or credit over your life, to allow them to coerce you to be unhappy.

That, and vote.

After this weekend's back and forth between Rush Limbaugh and Bill Clinton, I must ask the rhetorical, "Why give Bill Clinton the opening?"

Recently I've been affronting people with my belief that most Republicans and Conservatives have been acting just like the Democrats and Liberals had acted during the 8 years of the Bush Administration.

Mean, angry, hateful, anti-government, and even more.

Its not pretty, and now its being exploited by the Master of the Game.

Instead of taking the high road, we've taken the base road.

I'm not against airing all the dirty laundry that escapes network and liberal media scrutiny, but I'm against all the deviant personal attacks and hysterical hyperbole about the end of society as we know it.

Newsflash: Society as we know it changes everyday as norm, and as fact, the finances of this country are in such poor state due to both parties' negligence.

I don't wish to ascribe that much power to Obama, he hasn't ruined us, but I don't think he is helping much either.

Back to Clinton v. Limbaugh.

If Mr. Limbaugh is going to play his cards just like he did during Mr. Clinton's 8 years, well, I think it would be reasonable to expect the latter learning something about how to neutralize or even turn the tables on the radio Maestro.

And by taking the stand he did, I think Clinton scored one for his team. It was reasonable and somewhat indirect. Direct enough to prove a point, but reasonably general in his target, so that he doesn't look partisan.

Collectively, we Conservatives do a poor job of imitating Liberals. We ought to stick to the intelligent conversations, not the ugly paranoia and implied anti-Americanism.

The facts we can win with, acting like them just plays into their hands.

I read this report just now about President Clinton, as a stand in for President Obama, at the Gridiron Club's annual dinner.

Quite the comedian.

My thoughts turned to the 1990's and how much the conservatives and Republicans would vilify Clinton. I bought into some of that vitriol, but I've come to learn that what I really got was a facade.

Anyone willing to pay attention now a days to Mr. Clinton's goings on would have to admit that the man is interesting, accomplished, and self-deprecating.

Self-deprecating, I like that.

He showed a lot of respect to the elder Bush and was, considering the hyperbole then, quite mum during the term of the younger Bush.

It's all just a reminder that we sometimes take politics too seriously and misconstrue the other side. We sometimes forget that their opinions may differ from us, but in fact, usually, they have only the best intentions in mind.

Even Barrack Obama!

While the Limbaugh's, Hannity's, and Moore's of the airwaves excite us to anger at each other for siding with the Clinton's, Bush's, and Obama's, they all enjoy a nice dinner together, and a handsome stipend, at our expense.

Have you read that at least two states' Attorney Generals are planning to sue over the health care bill?

This is a splendid development.

If the one good thing that comes out of this package deal is a renewed fight for states rights, then I may be for it.

What can you do to help the cause? If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

When I was younger, and never too shy for a good political argument, I would often end a dialog by acknowledging that although I don't agree, at least we both vote. It seemed a rather tidy and polite way of ending a laborious and circuitous banter.

Not anymore.

If I don't agree with someone, I'm even more polite than I have ever been!

But now I'll quickly go to alternative dialog "B". That's the one where I get real bitter about the whole process and government. In fact I'm so turned off by the whole establishment, that I want you to be too.

While I still vote, and as early and as often as possible, I make a half decent effort to disenfranchise the opposition.

This is great advice for the nascent Tea Party movement. You can accomplish better results if you identify an intractable nature in conversation, and discourage him or her from voting at all.

But you got to find out early on if you can reach these people with your limited government ideology.

Just trying to help. . . .

That Massa is quite zany, and he's the latest example of the problems with commenting on what you read.

The truth is never easy to ascertain. I'm just looking for a good laugh anymore.

Where are all the crazed lay Democrats who were led to hysteria over how Bush strong armed his political opposition?

Did you see this strong armed tactic by the President's right hand man?

I can't be entertained by the politicians anymore, I expect nothing but the worst from them.

The lay people, now they are bad too, but I can laugh aloud at them.

The light bulb is dim I realized. Literally, figuratively, and metaphorically.

Early last summer I went to the local hardware store and came across those new compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL). The marketing was such that it moved me to purchase a sizable quantity and replace some of the incandescent bulbs that were in high use in my house.

It wasn't that hard of a sell, I've always considered myself an early adopter, that guy that buys in early on new consumer tech products. I was being increasingly exposed to the inefficiencies of the old light bulb -- mostly heat, little light for all the energy one consumes -- in print and t.v., and like the perfect mark, I bought into it all. The savings were going to be great!

That is until Day Light Savings Time came to an end and I realized I couldn't see as well with these fancy things. And did you know that if one should break, you need to call the local Haz-Mat Team?

Is it only coincidence that advertising for these new bulbs seems to disappear during winter when the deficiencies of the light is inescapable?

Metaphorically speaking, I hope the filters in your life are allowing the dimming of the whole Al Gore/Environmental/Global Warming bulb to be seen in your home.

I'll talk to you later, I just bought a pack of the old Edison bulbs to replace the replacements. I just may break one on purpose, to see that explosion, while I still can.

"Why We Fight" is a title of an episode of HBO's Band of Brothers. Its a particular moving episode, on the discovery of a concentration camp in Germany, by the Americans, in the waning days of WWII.

My mind wondered to that series when I was asked recently if I've been on an Olympic hiatus from battling the dastardly villains of the liberal left.

The easy answer would be yes. I've been lax because I've been maxed out on Winter Olympics. I can't get enough of the Hockey and Curling Tournaments!

The harder answer is that, in this era of full-bore disgruntled, enraged, and engaged partisans, I'm not entirely.

Even more so, I have trouble finding inspiration from the genre to write about.

True inspiration, not the self-serving, media driven, cult of personality that is passing for inspiration now a days.

In fact, I'm equal parts indifferent and outraged, but they short each other out.

This affords me a sober response to the rhetoric.

I can't trust either side to get the job done, and it needs done like yesterday, if not yesteryear.

I'm a conservative and I vote, its not apathy, its that the GOP can not incite me where they'd rather I'd be incited, all the while I'm rather excited to the point of pulling that voting lever real hard next time around.

I can't follow anything real close anymore not just because both sides get nothing done, but also because all the while they're doing nothing, its claimed the other side is the obstacle and is distorting the issue.

The reality is that when the Republicans were clearly in power, they got nothing done and in 2010 the Democrats can't get anything done. I'm going back decades with some of these issues that neither side has made positive nor substantive change to.

I'm cynical about the whole establishment.

Truth they say is out there, but I can't trust anyone really has a grasp of it to tell me, and inspire me with it.

Book Review: Rome 1960

For a good read on some Summer Olympic history, try Rome 1960: The Summer Olympics That Stirred the World by David Maraniss.

The Pulitzer Prize winner also wrote Clemente: The Passion and Grace of Baseball's Last Hero and When Pride Still Mattered : A Life Of Vince Lombardi.


What you'll find is a swift moving history of the waning weeks of summer in 1960 when the games played out in Rome. Who you'll find is a cast of Americans that include the young and energetic boxer, Cassius Clay; the noble decathlete Rafer Johnson; and the elegant sprinter Wilma Rudulph.

Also in this retelling of a transitive period in global sports during the Cold War adolescent period, you'll meet members of the Soviet Union team and the last unified German team.

You'll learn about the beginnings of steroids in sports and how geopolitical battles were contested not only on the field, but in the International Olympic Committee meetings as well.

Not to be out done by the East - West rivalry, the two Chinese get catty, not for the first nor last time.

There was also Abebe Bikila, a bare-footed, gold medal marathon runner from Ethiopa.

A most fascinating bit of history to offer my readers is the nugget that after these Olympics were concluded, Americans began to worry about their overall competitiveness and physical fitness.

The new President, John Kennedy, appointed a 'special consultant' to "make it clearly understood that the promotion of sports participation and physical fitness is a basic continuing policy of the United States." p. 386.

Soon schools were testing children across the country in athletic prowess.

Which reinforces my belief that Government can't really do much right. Its been 50 years since, while obesity and sloth have only gotten worse.

Fix health care? Good luck with that one.

Its easy to target the President in politics, but I'm not intending to blame Obama for everything. In fact, I'm quite lenient on him. I rather not act like he and his party did for the eight years of the Bush presidency. I'm not going to be that guy.

Most problems we faced were around before Bush, and even before Clinton and Bush the elder. Our problems have been lurking for decades.

Instead of solving our problems the two sides agitate the other, the disciples are led down the road of good intentions, bedazzled yet angry at everyone else for the problems that are du jour right now.

Professing to trust none, yet committed to the heard, we split our vote on one of two candidates that increasingly are inches apart, not the miles they'd have us believe.

Have you read this oped from John Brennan, Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism in the USA Today?

With all due respect Mr. Brennan, but where were you while your boss and his cronies were emasculating the President, and the office of the presidency, all the while Bush was there?

Its a Bizzaro World, the GOP does exactly what the Democrats had done for years, and now again, the Obama Administration uses the same logic as the Bush Administration.

Change?

George Washington was right and these political parties are destroying the promise of America.

He said in his Farewell Address of 1796:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

Reflect on how the founding principles, and in deed the founding fathers, are continuously under attack, ridiculed, and ignored by the cohorts of the Progressive ideology.

One way to counter act that regression of our shared and communal intellect, our degenerative body politic, is to reveal what placed these founders in such high regard in the first place.

George Washington, to be sure, wasn't one of the 'best and brightest', if we can borrow that misnomer from a later era. He didn't write the Declaration of Independence nor draft the Constitution. He was a natural leader of men, a General and President, and when he left public service he shared a lot of advice he learned from a tumultuous time period.

Sadly, we haven't paid heed to much of that advice in recent decades.

The Tea Party movement looks in some way to re-arouse the spirit of Washington, Jefferson, and Hamilton.

The biggest obstacle they'll face is the entrenched party apparatus', but I fear they are our last best hope of salvaging our future.

Any honest projection of the course of our nation going forward will acknowledge the dismal state of our finances: the debt, the deficit, and the obligations.

Neither party can claim superiority over the other in managing our books.

The Democrats have been in charge of the pocket book since 2007, when they took back the House of Representatives. They have failed miserably to not only make an effort to restore balance in the federal budget, but they have also failed to steer the nation toward prosperity.

It seems their leaders are doing their best to emulate Ayn Rand's government of Atlas Shrugged. Surreal is what it is, and frightening.


For their part, the Republicans lost their fiscal discipline at some point in the early '00s and it was not until they lost power that they were born again. Or so they would have us believe.

Consider that I'm only addressing our finances, and not our foreign policy, trade, education, health, or immigration problems!

Is this nation ready to support a third party? I'm a skeptic. In the 1990's I committed myself to voting third party whenever possible, and I'll argue night and day that it has never been a waste of my vote.

Unfortunately, millions have wasted their vote on the same old same old. The reasons are wonderfully articulate, and they have been voiced by such statesmen as Arlen Spector and the late Ted Kennedy.

One strident Democrat, filled with nothing but hate and contempt of Republicans, clued me in that he would vote third party, but there was no one to vote for. I replied, I voted third party all my life.

We live in the same district.

Washington had the courage to do great things, do we have the courage to do the little things, like vote for someone other than a Democrat or Republican?

Political uprisings are not for the faint of heart.

We've got the Tea Party Convention going on right now, and the political undulations which will play their way out from that center can beget some serious unintended consequences.

Like splitting the Republican and Conservative vote, which would allow a second term for Barack Obama, which as they see it, is one of the big problems we have right now.

And don't think that the character assassins from both parties aren't sharpening their knives as I type this. Stepping up and out, an attempt to wrest power from either political party will attract all kinds of the wrong attention, 'they' will not go down quietly.

Sarah Palin. She's already damaged goods. Katie Couric saw to that.

Who will bravely stand up next? We shall see, but be sure, whomever it is will attract the most villainous enemies, those that use their words to destroy a career.


Unintended consequences abound.

More thoughts forthcoming. . . .

Benjamin Franklin:

"The more I discovered of the former, the more I admired them; the more I know of the latter, the more I am disgusted with them. Men I find to be a sort of beings very badly constructed, as they are generally more easily provoked than reconciled, more disposed to do mischief to each other than to make reparation, much more easily deceived than undeceived, and having more pride and even pleasure in killing than in begetting one another, for without a blush they assemble in great armies at noon day to destroy, and when they haved killed as many as they can, they exaggerate the number to augment the fancied glory; but they creep in to corners, or cover themselves with the darkness of night when they mean to beget, as living ashamed of a virtuous action."

p. 307
A Great Improvisation

The latter being his contemporaries in government.

Who can you learn more from, an eight year old or an advisor to the president?

My son is a budding herpetologist, he wants to study snakes and other reptiles.

The presumpted sensei is "Charles E. Phillips — president and director of the tech conglomerate Oracle Corporation and a member of Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board."

Today my son asked me to pick a snake that I wanted to learn about and he'll gather information from his books on that snake for me.

I picked the Boomslang, which I learned is the only species in the Dispholidus genus. A Colubridae, Dispholidus typus.

With a max length of about five feet it can be a few different colors, but deadly poisonous. The name means "tree snake" in Afrikaans.

What Mr. Phillips taught me is that billboards in major metropolitian areas will cost about $50,000, and having an eight year affair is even more costlier.

And while its good to know about the cost of advertising in Times Square, I think the eight years I've spent with my son is of more value than the same years Mr. Phillips spent with Ms. Wilkins.

Advantage: The herpetologist.

Plus all this I'm learning about snakes!

My son, following in my footsteps. I studied snakes in college -- Political Science.

Funny thing I heard today:

Erstwhile Republican, now Democrat, Arlen Spector asks Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.)to state what she stands for!


Read the story and the audio here.

There is more, he tells her to "act like a lady."

If only we knew where dear Arlen stands.

He's up for re-election. Its widely understood that he needs years 31 - 36 in the Senate in order to accomplish something for the people, besides the "single bullet theory."

Did I mention he was a Democrat before he was a Republican, now Democrat again?

In the business of information, truth raises to the top. It may take time, and the sitting champ will fight back, but time is on the side of the more honest contender.

I read that a long time ago, and have believed it ever since.

I had a short conversation a few weeks ago, political conversations with the duration of short require focused generalizations, when my colleague quipped that he doesn't listen to a certain news station.

"They have an agenda," he said.

I appreciated his concern for fair and balanced journalism, but as the news station he shuns is the ratings leader now a days, I dropped my opening line on him.

That is all.

Oddly, today I viewed a number of news sites, wanting to see the coverage on the Brown win in Massachusetts.

The ratings leader had a story on the victory, even an image on the front page of the smiling victor.

The news site preferred by my friend on guard against agendas had a story of the loser's faulty campaign and a story on the first year of the Obama Administration. Nothing on the Brown triumph! No kidding.

You know what, my friend never seen that clip of Brown rebuking the debate moderator about the seat not being the Kennedy's nor the Democrat Party.

Should I let him know who won last night? I hate to come off as a Republican mouth piece. . . .

Could we be seeing the beginnings of a movement to "traditionalize" certain seats of Congress?

What I'm talking about is that I've read and heard, over the last few times a Democrat seat went open, is a notion that it was someones seat, so only someone with those sames views is appropriate for it.

Like only a liberal and a health care proponent is worthy of the seat in Massachusetts.

It's not said outright, implied little more, but the language by the pundits and the candidates assume the sale.

It gives me pause, I think, could the long view be that of a large number of seats in Congress entitled on a tradition?

New Year, New Focus

Just read Beck's "Common Sense". In general I like this book better than Levin's "Lyberty and Tyranny". The argument differ slightly, but the conclusions are the same. That we are on the wrong path as a nation is fairly self-evident, the degree to which the cancer is pervasive is unsettled and unsettling in any event.

A must read, a call to action.

I especially love the notion that to dismiss third party voting as a waste implies that we can't do any better than what we got. Heaven forbid.

I wish for all involved that the Republicans would be more polite in opposition and that the Democrats be more effective in power.

People ask, "What do you think of Obama?" I answer, "I'm underwhelmed."

"In a hundred years people will look back with scorn, 'what were they thinking?'", that's what I've been saying to people lately.

The primary thrust of the anti-universal health care contingent ought now to be the best implementation. The momentum, if not the majority, is on the other side. Pragmatists should realize that the numbers are only going to grow for some plan, they are best serving society by getting involved, to influence, in a positive way, the plan while having their concerns considered.

What's not Right.

One behavior that regularly stokes my irritation with the left is their constant griping about everything that President Bush does, and now everything that John McCain does, or at this point, lacking power, says.

Alright already, we get it, the loyal opposition is ever vigilant.

However, they never want it reversed. They want to condemn and criticize at will, but they never want to be aired the exact faults of themselves to be made mentioned.

One thing that I think the Bush Administration does exactly right is that they don't entertain the constant harping. He doesn't cry about it, he doesn't plead his case to the press, he doesn't pander and whimper.

Contrast that to the Left.

While Bush has been called Hitler, Obama has been called inexperienced. Bush has left it alone, Obama has cried foul.

That's one lesson that will endure from the Bush Administration for any who wish to acknowledge it. In politics, complaining about everything the opposition does is petty, not enduring it when it comes back at you, that's immaturity.

I don't carry much respect for politicians who politicize everything, but can't shoulder the exact reversal of polarization.

They're All Liars

I had an exchange with 2 acquaintances of mine on the topic the Democrat Primaries.

One voted for Obama, he was in the Clinton camp from way back though, and has a bet with me that Hillary will be the next president. We made this bet a year ago.

Another guy says he voted for Hillary, and when I said that she lies too easily, he laid the old saw that 'they are all liars.' Meaning, of course, all politicians are liars.

One of those classics. . .

. . . and that is why we get lying politicians.

What's the point in expecting anything better in the people who get elected, if we are knowingly voting for acknowledged liars in the first place?

Is it that hard to not vote for someone who's got caught lying? Hillary or any other.

Or how about the stimulus rebate checks.

I know one fella who was wisely informed that we are just borrowing this money from the Chinese, and then will have to pay it back with interest. I pointed out that 1.) We are going to buy a lot of Chinese goods with this stimulus money, so they are making out even better, and 2.) in response to opinion polls that favor this rebate I ask if this is good now, why was it so bad back in 2001 when it was Bush and the GOP congress that passed the tax rebates over then Democrat opposition.

Its actually a worse idea now because back then we had the money, it wasn't borrowed from the Chinese, today it will be.

At this point he lost interest in the topic.

What has happened since 2001 that convinced the Democrats to silence their criticism of, and then vote for the rebate legislation today? ahem.

Well, that brought silence because the whole idea is Bush's, of course, and the criticism was meant to bash Bush in 2001, not Bush & the Democrat Party today. The past criticism should not be expected to hold water against the party of their enduring loyalty.

So often times it happens that only a bit of factual data links a bash to a Bush. Hey, I'm not defending Bush, I'm asking why stop looking for truth.

Why take just a little bit of an issue and assign blame, why not get the whole picture. Or as much as possible as is reasonable.

But, alas, too often, when it looks like the truth may be a little messier, all interest erodes for sounding informed.

Warren Buffett on Candidates.

In a recent issue of Fortune Magazine, investment & business sage Warren Buffett is quoted as saying that we have 3 really good candidates for president. To his credit, his ranks John McCain ahead of the other two.

This means one of two things.

Either I'm not as smart as I think I am, or Warren Buffett is not as smart as I think he is.

Productivity is the American Way

One of my favorite little sayings is that "I'm so productive Greenspan would be proud", or conversely, "Alan Greenspan wouldn't appreciate that." I think productive, productivity, and productiveness are all terms synonymous with the American Spirit. Not the definition of patriot or patriotism, but awfully close, perhaps even more relevant as to the true American identity.

One could be a patriot but not be entirely too productive, or vice versa. I think the American Spirit is a perception earned from years of commitment to a socially universal trait. Each nation earns its Spirit, some become not at all flattering. Think the Soviet Union or France.

I think a core element of the American Spirit is our productivity. We even measure our productivity, and by comparison to other countries its one of the last remaining areas of dominance Americans still enjoy in the global workforce. Innovation is another area we still dominate. Americans are productive and innovative. That is the measure of the American Spirit.

In fact, my biggest gripe of this Iraq War is the lack of progress, its productiveness. We are all upset about this. Sure there are a slew of truly peaceful people out there that were and continue to be against the war. But mostly the discontent comes not from fighting Saddam, but not securing the peace after the fight and that this war has dragged on in its current phase for close to 5 years. Too long. Too Unproductive.

Just about everyone approved of the war in the beginning, except for the hard core peaceful. Most Americans are upset at how un-American it has become.

However, there are the people who are saying that we shouldn't be there in the first place. These are people who are unproductive. That debate was settle a long time ago, and to just deviate briefly, its ironic how they support the people who voted for the war continuously. Without hesitation it seems. Read Kerry and Clinton.

Right, I always say to them. What's the use of debating with someone living in the past? The reality is its 2007, right?

Those people just bought into the hate machine. I'm not saying they aren't Patriotic, that they've lost the love of their country. I'm not saying that. They have lost the American Spirit. They let that spirit die and supplanted it with a virulent anti-Bush spirit.

With that being said, when today I heard President Bush categorize the Democrat resolution in congress to condemn Turkey for events almost a hundred years ago as unproductive I thought Alan Greenspan would approve.

When you find someone who disagrees with the President today, we don't have to smear them as unpatriotic. They've only lost the American Spirit.

This resolution can harm the progress in the war as Turkey has threatened to run military missions into Iraq, which they had been restraining from doing out of deference to the U.S. mission in Iraq.

I'm not here to convince anyone of the value of continuing the war, but I think its awfully important that elected representatives of the U.S. Government not do anything that would incite ours allies to abandon us.

This can lead to American deaths. Isn't that what the Peace movement is trying to prevent?

It just seems that not only is this resolution counter productive, but its also a hypocritical position to take from anyone who slandered Bush for alienating the world and killing American kids for no reason.

It shows terrible judgment. Consider that they can just de-fund the war and end it all. Instead they do what they condemned Bush for.

The Pressure is On

click


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/washington/12memo.html?ei=5065&en=1c7066d2e0c64e4e&ex=1192766400&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1192215841-VBVU5OCbgJ9SYHO4SCs8AQ


While I'm ranting and raving about how liberals are not pressuring their heroes in congress, I've come across a few articles that belie my opinion.

One was anti-war activist camping out at the Pelosi's, another was in Fortune Magazine and dealt with the real change in the Party in regards to free trade(it seems that some have actually worked toward preventing free trade agreements rather than just complain and then turn a blind eye to acts like Clinton's signing of NAFTA way back when).

And now this article above.

Honestly, transgender issues are of no concern of mine, but apparently this is one issue where liberals are going to stand strong on!?!

In the mean time Congress is alienating our allies with more of their silly resolutions.

I was told Bush was ruining our standing in the world, but I don't recall any ambassadors being recalled because of his actions, unlike what the Democrats just caused with Turkey.

If you don't know what I'm referring to, this is where I don't provide a link just to show you that I too can control the information you receive.

In other words if you don't know what I'm talking about then your being fed what "they" only want you to hear, and stories about Democrats straining our international relations aren't for your digestion.

Funny also how despite Bush's attempts to piss everyone off in the world, both Germany and France voted for pro-American leaders this past couple of years. . . .

That isn't suppose to happen.

A Candidate's Test

click


http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460


This links to a quiz that will match your preferences on certain issues to the candidates.

These are great.

Of course Hillary's positions are updated daily as her positions change that often.

She already dropped the child's saving bond idea.

Yet Another Capitulation

click

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/washington/09cnd-nsa.html?ei=5065&en=5614405c7a9db3a5&ex=1192507200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print


Another Capitulation.

I don't get tired of presenting these, I feel duty bound in some respect.

You see, I want something in America that hasn't happened in a while.

I want to see Democrats be held accountable.

I want them to do what they promised. To not behave in the way they criticized Bush and Republicans for.

I may be asking much, but really conservatives do it all the time.

I especially want a choice next election. Beyond the Republican candidate and my usual third party choice.

I don't want another Presidential candidate taken from the 'most electable' stack.

I want one with ideas and issues and a track record. Again, that may be asking for much from liberals today but it wasn't always that way.

If we start expecting more from them, then maybe they'll start delivering.

Don't you get tired of all the complaining about how 'things' are with no true efforts to change them despite promises to do so?

Questionable Judgment

click


http://www.examiner.com/a-977346~He_s_back__Sandy_Berger_now_advising_Hillary_Clinton.html


What am I missing?

She disparages Bush and his administrations perceived shadiness, even gets the ball rolling in condemning a Bush blunder or back room dealing, and yet she hires Berger.

It's actions like this that I can't dismiss.

You can, your free to dismiss or buy into whatever you want.

My judgment is he's a crook, I'd be in jail if I did what he did.

Her judgment is questionable.

But she has a 'd' and the right last name preceding that 'd'.

That's all that matters.

Plame/Wilson/Novak/Rove

click
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/novak-wilson-did-not-forcefully-object-to-naming-of-cia-wife-in-column-2007-10-06.html



This was just an incredible abuse of power.

But not the way its conventionally viewed.

It was so much a story to keep controversy on the Bush Administration, to keep negative coverage going, just in case Bush couldn't bumble his way into any himself.

I had people emailing me about how criminal Karl Rove was! Like they knew all the facts.

What I took from it was the juxtaposition between the way the Bush Administration handled a Special Prosecutor and the way the Clinton Administration did.

Fitzgerald never had his reputation impugned, not once. But everyone knows how dastardly Ken Starr was. That speaks to the kind of person Bush is versus the type of person Clinton is. Even if it was lackey's who did it to Starr. Clinton didn't put a stop to it.

But this story kept voters who needed something, who wanted something, to hate in hate.

These people are so easily persuaded. That's a problem. If you're getting riled up to hatred from inner D.C. politics then your not clear minded. Further more, if your only mad at one side, all the time, then you're so far gone that you've become a cartoon.

I had people emailing me all the time, like I said, about how bad Rove was. Do I actually expect them to feel remorse today about how they slandered Rove? No. I don't even expect them to get this news. They get the first impressions and that is enough, to correct the news with facts is beyond their needs.

Its not important to get the news right for many people. Its important that their world view is preserved. Regardless of the reality.

Politicians love these people, love them for being easily swayed to serve the side that instigates ugly politics.

We are stuck with them. You gotta love them like children, they know no better, and want no better either.

They are the same people complaining about the same issue for years and years and years. They would never expect the side they don't hate to perform, they expect to be fed reasons to hate the other side.

Secede!

click

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_on_re_us/secessionist_movement_1

Can we really be considered a free society if what these groups aspire to is regarded as unconstitutional?

What happened to the tenets of the Declaration of Independence? Are they invalid now? We have no rights to form a new government anymore?

But we go about the world imposing democracy when we won't honor it here?

Its one of those issues where the question arises within myself, why should I care if Vermont secedes? Or similarly, why should I care if two guys marry?

This country is all about talking freedom but when it comes down to brass tacks we are no worse than sheep.

Vote for the same bland politicians named Bush or Clinton, get riled up to vote because of a constitutional amendment that would ban something, voice anger and hatred at talk show hosts that rehash the news.

But there is still some life left in the old idea of liberty. Maybe the internet will nurture the spirit.

This next election will be an indicator I think. Can a Ron Paul get serious consideration? Who's the indie darling of the left? Kucinich?

Is liberalism dead?

John McCain

click

http://www.miamiherald.com/367/story/256844.html

Chinese water torture comes to mind.

Who's giving this guy money?

Send it my way instead, I'll do something productive with it.

Rush Limbaugh

I'm just glad that although this nation faces many severe issues, the leaders in Congress can find time to attack a radio talk show host.

This is why we kicked the GOP out and voted for the Democrats. To stand up for America.

It's about time.

Ironically, its harder to find out what he actually said than to find out what the Democratic Leaders say about him.

I wouldn't even of heard of this if it wasn't for Harry Reid. Thanks Mr. Reid for allowing Mr. Limbaugh to rehash all the unpatriotic words that you said.

Only in America.

I'm not linking to any sites on this story. I spent enough time on this silliness. But I'm on record as to where I stand on this crucial issue facing America, this most important topic that has demanded the attention of the Senate Leader, and that is down with free speech, unless its a liberal calling Bush the devil. Then that is o.k. and patriotic.

There is a Difference

click
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/christan-conservatives-consider-third-party-effort/


I ran across this article and to me its highlights the contrast in the differences of two major movements in politics.

One the right, Christians do abandon the GOP, and non-christians as well, when the candidates aren't aligned with the cause.

On the left its all about the party.

It's highly unlikely, damn near never going to happen, that a moveon.org or a "A Million Blogs for Peace" group is going to wake up and ever entertain the thought of not voting for a Democrat regardless of whether the candidate aligns with the cause.

Its not healthy. But that is the way it is, been that way for decades. They got KKK members, man-slaughter Senators, and assorted other seedy characters described as liberal and they are cherished by virtue of the 'd' next to their name.

Askthe senior Bush how quickly he was abandoned by the Right after he abandoned the Right.

Its Obama

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RVD28G0&show_article=1


I like what Obama says when he confronts Camp Clinton. I think he's right. Hillary says what she needs to say and flirts around the edges of issues.

I don't know much about Obama, he seems progressive and a doer before a talker. Obviously there is something amiss if he is a Democrat, but what you gonna do?

Though its his talk that suggest that he'd be a courageous choice for president from the left side.

However, at present they think Hillary is most electable. . . odd they don't consider that around half the voters wouldn't consider her at all.

Issues aren't important. Just ask those who have the Hillary '08 and the Million Blogs for Peace icons on their blogs.

The Newest Resolution!

click

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/washington/27congcnd.html?ref=world

What's to make of this? A Senate Resolution urging the branding of "terrorist" upon the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps!

That isn't a step on the pathway to peace? Or is it?

What I took away from this is the Resolution put up by Joe Biden. Here's a guy running for President and he isn't waiting. His stance is to partition Iraq. OK. His Resolution urges such. Great.

I always wonder that about politicians. If they got such a great idea to justify their re-election, or promotion, then why wait? Like him or not, he's must really believe in what he says if he is already acting upon his words.

Anyways. Its another hollow resolution. Those Democrats. . .So resolute.

Incredible Idea

click

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RULMJO0&show_article=1

While this idea isn't novel, its still great.

Third party candidates have suggested this type of bond for years, and I've always liked it. I'm not about to change my mind now.

What's great about this now is that if someone with a 'd' next to their name has finally embraced the concept, then so many millions of Americans are going to buy into it without a thought.

Hell, they're bound to give Hillary so much love for championing the little guys with these bonds that I'm going to get sick all over again, like when I see the peaceniks with the Hillary '08 bumper stickers.

What is bad about the idea is that I already had my kids, within the last six years. But unlike the folks who don't like tax cuts if a Republican suggest them, I still support this plan, even though my kids miss out and a Democrat is on it first this year.

Of course, I heard promises from her and others like her in office before. . . .

She is a Senator, get it going on now Hillary. Why wait till your President?

There is no debate about it. . .

click

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070927/D8RTI22O0.html


As time goes by, its becoming increasingly obvious that the rhetoric of the last 6 years was only that. Talk.

No serious candidate for President on the Democratic side is going to end the War in Iraq.

Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

Now the question is what are voters going to do? Go with a Democrat who has been less than honest about this issue, go with an evil Republican, or couragously vote third party and dishonor generations of democrat-lever ancestors.

It's probably going to come down to who in their judgment is the most electable. Issue don't matter on the left.

That's history, not my opinion. My opinion is that their judgment is horrible. Doesn't make them bad people, just not helpful when its time to pressure politicians to get things done.

Elections are great, it reinforces my disdain for the two party system.

Hillary Does Appeal to Republicans!

click

href="http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/09/23/clinton_says_she_can_appeal_to_gop_voters/7476">http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/09/23/clinton_says_she_can_appeal_to_gop_voters/7476

I could consider voting for Hillary Clinton. There are just certain benefits to having her as President.

Like having positive stories in the paper for a change.

Also, if I like how things are, she'd be a safe vote.

Only the GOP watches Big Brother 8

I've caught most of the Big Brother 8 reality T.V. show this summer, and all kept through it all iI concluded that only Republicans watch this show and only Republicans vote in regards to America's player.

Gosh, every task that Eric was to do followed the quaintest of paths. Give a kiss to someone, ah Jessica. Give a childhood toy to someone, yep Jessica.

Anyways, its over now with two episodes to go.

Thanks America and the Evil Dick.

Evil Dick. Just typing that seems like a sinister act on my part.

But he beat the Republicans. Go figure.

Mexican Truckers and the Teamsters

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/trade/2007-09-12-mexico-trucks_N.htm?csp=34

Just some thoughts on this much ado about the Mexican trucks that are about to imperil everyone on the Nation's highways.

To me, and I'm a Teamster Local 264, it seems like more of a symbolic issue than a real issue. It's an issue because Democrats have to repay the Teamsters for their support year in and year out.

Otherwise it doesn't seem like much of an issue. The column above cites that its probable that Mexican trucks are marginally safer than U.S. trucks! This is made mention because that is how the debate is framed most often -- Unsafe Mexican truckers & safety standards aren't on par with U.S.

If there is parity on safety, as mentioned in the USA Today story, then the real issue is how to give something to the teamsters as a quid pro quo.

I'm not ignorant of the job issue and herein lies another symbolic battle. This one is for my benefit.

If you go to the Teamsters.org web site you'll be greeted by an array of flags on the bottom of the site from different countries in the world. While I realize that those flags are placed by the translation service, the Teamsters themselves are an international brotherhood.

If that is correct, as it is, and if they proudly print in their monthly magazine international union triumphs, as they do, then its a tad bit odd to see them fighting their international brethren.

Obviously, not all the truckers are Teamster coming up out of Mexico, but wouldn't the ones that are benefit from longer hauls?

But no, I don't buck the Teamsters position on this issue, they are suppose to be fighting for my selfish benefit. . . .

The rub I do have with the Teamsters is this, they only pay off one type of politician. This isn't good. They are susceptible to emotional arguments. Example given.

This NAFTA/trucker issue is 15 years old. The politicians they pay have no threat of losing the money they gladly take, so they have taken 15 years, so far, to really confront this issue. Lets settle this and put it to bed.

Let the Mexicans drive in, or not. Then lets move on.

The smart money in business pays off both sides and you never hear them gripe, one sided organizations always seem to gripe, and often get little in return from their investments.

Want more proof that the Teamster/Democrat relationship isn't healthy? Bill Clinton, Democrat, signed NAFTA. Yet he continued to receive the support of the Teamsters. As does his wife.

But, for my benefit, the Democrats and Teamsters have chosen to vilify Mr. Bush's NAFTA, never Mr. Clinton's, and for this I repay them with my vote?

Marvel at the thought of Change

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/09/giuliani-clinto.html


Seen a Hillary 2008 Bumper Sticker today,

I marvel at the thought that someone has the thought that Hillary is the change we need.

She'll be good for controversy and the continuing of the polarization of America.

Yet she's the best they got on the Left!

Incredible.

What am I missing? What suspension of disbelief it must take to support her.

and piss poor judgement.

I hope she wins, obviously.

The Hsu Cha-Ching Trail

Leading Clinton Donor Stays Below Radar

Here is one of those stories that in the end will be much ado about nothing.

A Clinton receiving monies from dubious sources, from people with a shady past shouldn't be a surprising bit of news to anyone by now, and its unlikely to change a thing in her presidential election campaign. Maybe she'll give the money back. Big deal.

It would be a bigger deal if this story actually harmed her career, if the media in general will ask her one tough question regarding just this one money issue, if people who bleed blue were actually spending a moment in reflective thought about her character and ability to effect change in America.

Democrats outside the Beltway do not judge the politicians who have a 'd' next to their name the same way they do of those politicians who have an 'r'. Its true, much is said about this on the right leanings airwaves, but often times those radio heads are angling their tirade at the biased media and the DC crowd. Yet its all those common people who turn a blind eye to transgressions by Democrats who are really the problem.

There is no nicer way to state it.

You expect people with power to eventually get corrupt and you expect people who are giving us the news to have a bias. You can expect the two covering each other's back.

What should not be expected, or accepted is blind loyalty to a party. Yeah, its cuts both ways. However, for every one Democrat that has walked away from power in disgrace from a unflattering scandal there are handfuls of Republicans to match.

I'm not writing to attack Hillary Clinton, Mr. Hsu, or the biased media. At this point I've come to expect nothing better from her. This isn't her first suspicious donor.

I'm attempting to stir a civil dialogue with the people who only care about scandal when its a Republican in the wrong. That's not defending Republicans.

The people who nominated John Kerry because he was the most electable. The voters who deeply care about the environment, but shunned Ralph Nader. The lazy chair economists who are against a tax cut, but not when a Democrat proposes one. The peaceniks who don't flock to Dennis Kucinich. The class warriors who hate Republicans because they are for the rich and the Democrats are for the poor.

These people exist and they are the enablers of the corrupt culture of D.C.

When they are polled by Gallup their judgment comes to represent millions of Americans and then the media has their acquiescence to continue the bias.

Most troubling, generally speaking, its many of these same people who clamor for change. All the time.

In the meantime, I hear that Senator Larry Craig(r - Idaho) is getting his dose of toxic news coverage for acting like a gay man? Email me and I'll tell you how William Jefferson(d - LA) stole hundreds of thousands a couple of years ago and I bet you never heard of him.

Considering all the sensitivities on the left that gets those on the right in hot water, wouldn't it be a great show on election day if the rest of America judged all politicians equally?

Change isn't going to happen until then. . . .

Gonzales Resigns, and this matters to what?

Embattled Gonzales Quits As Last.

Today Alberto Gonzales quit as Attorney General. For some life will never be the same. For others, they'll party through the night. I plan on getting some early sleep.

The only curiosity for me is that generally speaking the Congressmen and women who were pressuring this man to resign where eerily silent when a previous AG went about killing Americans.

Oh, well.

Its a big boy sport in D.C. and lawyers will protect their own, but outside the beltway the generalization also holds true.

Some, believe it or not, will act like they've won something today. As though a nefarious plotter has been laid away and liberty is yet again the word of the day.

Isn't it odd?

Janet Reno not only survived more disturbing scandals directly involving her, but to this day she is held in high regard by those who actually gave a hoot about this Gonzales getting away with firing a slew of attorneys.

How is this judgment balanced?

Likely left to be one of those great mystery of American politics.

Brzezinski, Clinton, and the Obama Option

Brzezinski Embraces Obama Over Clinton

Its rare that I've agreed with such powerful Democrats, but its true, lately I've been agreeing with Obama, Clinton, and now Brzezinski.

Of course, all write ups about Democrat politics must include a Bush bash, so you'll enjoy that here, at the end when Brzezinski says the world hates us.

I guess Germany and France may not be on that list, considering the recent election of pro-American heads of state, but read into that what you will.

In any event, yet another mindful analyst who doesn't see much change coming from a Clinton, as if change came from the first one!

This is Hillary's Time to Shine

Video of Mrs. Clinton at VFW convention.

Writeup of Mrs. Clinton at VFW convention.


Well it didn't take long for Hillary Clinton to come over to my way of thinking did it? The problem for her loyalist is that my way of thinking isn't exactly what they have clamoring for for years.

I've been saying that we can't just pull out of Iraq and leave a blight on the U.S., especially after all the precious resources we've spent, in terms of life and money. Also, in the larger context of the War on Terror, we can't just hand a victory over to the enemy -- what we face in Iraq is not such a big hurdle, we can possible face much more dire and catastrophic attacks any day.

I've have argued for victory, and yet I'm open for the interpretation of withdrawal as a necessary movement based on the squandering of the opportunity the Iraqi's were given and that they are squarely to blame for any such short comings in their stability.

Its seems Hillary is moving toward my position.

However, much of Hillary's support is, and no doubt will be, from voters who like to fancy themselves as peaceful Americans who wanted the U.S. troops out of Iraq as of yesterday.

Its usually these people who like to sermonize what the future holds in Iraq, i.e. civil war, eventual defeat, another Vietnam, they can't understand Democracy. Today, I'll do a little sermonizing.

Hillary Clinton will be the next Democrat nominee for President. She'll get 45-51% of the vote. She may win, she may not. But she will get the support of most everyone of the these Americans who have a placard in their front yard or a bumper sticker on their automobiles that proudly states, "Support the Troops. End the War."

It its these American's who when polled in 2004 said the main reason they were voting for John Kerry was that he was electable. If you recall, this reason for voting for Kerry was the top reason. Above the war, taxes, social security, health care, the environment, deficit, debt. Above everything.

Is it any wonder why Bush won?

Its not to Ralph Nader, nor is it to me.

In 2008, whether the republican wins or not, one thing is almost certain, Hillary Clinton will get the support of the peaceniks despite the fact that she'll speak in terms of not ending the war immediately.

Exactly what they condemned Bush for.

Obama. A Kindred?

Obama Says Bush Not Solely to Blame

I'm not for any politician at this point, in fact I've just about convinced myself to go back to my third party roots in this next go round, but what Obama say in the first two paragraphs tickles me.

To be sure, he's probably just sealing his fate as a footnote in this race by saying Bush isn't to blame for everything -- those who hate Bush just can't see clearly anymore to acknowledge that there were problems before Bush. They'll rail against Obama and enjoin Hillary to change the country hereafter.

Obama is right about one thing, we can't just change the party in the White House and expect change.

All these Peace advocates are gathering around Hillary? I've personally experienced it with acquaintances.

If we intend to keep our military in the 100 other countries where troops are stationed, then peace ain't coming anytime soon.

I don't hear Hillary talking about that kind of change, so she's a vote for the same old same old.

To hell with change, more of the same!

On Betrayal and the Causes

Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years - New York Times

I have this acquaintance whom I run into on just about a daily basis. John is about as loyal a Republican as you can get, and there is nothing else keeping him up at night than the thought of a Hillary Clinton Presidency.

I do not at all share his concern over this matter. It's not that I don't think that she has a chance, for I think she has a tremendous chance of winning election, its that I don't think she'll change anything once in office, if she indeed does claim a victory.

I ask John, are you worried that she'll get the nation into a war? No, he says. I could of pointed out she did vote for war. I ask, John? Are you worried she'd spend more money than the government brings in, the classic big spending liberal? No, he says. I could of pointed out that she voted in favor of most Bush proposals during her terms.

He's worried that she'll raise taxes.

And that has nothing to do with the NY Times story I linked to, other than to point out that 'they' are on both sides of the isle.

But I tell John of why I think he'll get his worst fear realized anyways.

It's because roughly 40-45% of the population is going to vote for the Democrat in the election regardless of who it is. If not more this time around due to the real discontent with the Bush Administration.

Loyalty to the little 'd' is one of the persistent characteristics of life in America over the last 60 years.

Obviously, it cuts both ways. Many people will vote Republican, almost as loyally.

However, with a little help from a conservative third party candidate, and just the right blend of voter turnout, a Democrat would be assured a victory. Without a third party candidate, its still more likely than a republican winning, no matter who that is.

No doubts, Bill Clinton can testify, and who could question his integrity?

But as I said, I don't think she'll change a thing, and considering the leftist special interests are already quietly accepting betrayal of their causes, this only further convinces me that a democrat administration, regardless of who it is, will not only retain the loyalty vote but will also experience not a squawk from the corners of the liberal nation.

Without this pressure from the interest who expect change in federal government, its probable that the new President will do little. Why stir the basket when all the discontented are so at ease?

We only have to look at her husband's 8 years to understand how this plays out. About the only thing he changed were gays in the military and funding of overseas abortions, yet he sure made a lot of promises on his road to the White House.

Its horrible. All these people have been complaining for years. Since the first days of Bush's Administration, and yet they are already muting themselves for the benefit of a party. To hell with the ideals and principles.

Look at the environmentalist. Gore wrote "Earth in the Balance" in 1992. By 2000 Ralph Nader stood up and ran for president, as a Green Party candidate. He got about 5% of the vote. Al Gore got 50%. Thanks for nothing.

So I don't fear a Hillary Presidency, and I expect a full 8 years from her. I just don't expect her to change much, which is what is sorely needed anyways. Its simple logic, if the squawkers are lacking the courage to vote for someone other than a democrat, who they always vote for anyways, then they sure aren't going to do something that takes a lot more courage than that -- standing up to betrayal.

But voting for Hillary Clinton is a betrayal itself, if you've been against the War in Iraq, or a slew of other issues you have with the Bush Administration.

But considering what an act of betrayal to our allies is by quiting the War in Iraq abruptly, this indicates to me that some are very comfortable with the concept.