Moving the 47%

Obviously redistribution is here to stay.

In its most base form, redistribution is essentially government.  Or government is essentially redistribution.  But there is a Redistribution movement that gotten things all turned around.

Romney made his remarks about the 47%, which seemed to land on America like the pilgrims landing on the Indians.  Shocker!

There was never any doubt that the Democrat in a race would get the benefit of the doubt from the 47%.  But why is that?

A little examination of the recent history of the tax code is in order.

In my life, of just over four decades, there have been only Republicans who cut taxes.  Starting with Reagan, then Gingrich, and lastly Bush, the younger.

Increasingly, as the rates have been slashed, more and more Americans began to find themselves in the position whereby they do not pay federal income tax.

That 47% was built with Republican tax cuts.  Obama didn't build that.

Bill Clinton didn't build that either.

For all the animosity thrown at Republicans, that they only care for the rich, its all thrown blindly.

Some of the 47% equate their position as an act of generosity and love from the Democrats.  Loyalties are made from this notion.

But its just not true.

As to Romney, listen closely,  he promises tax cuts.  He says people on the low end will pay less.  He will grow the 47%.

The Numbers

Regarding the jobs issue, its such an easy identifier of integrity.

I remember when, eight years ago, John Kerry ran against the incumbent Bush, time and time again Bush's numbers were disparaged because his net numbers were the worst in decades.

Year	Qtr1	Qtr2	Qtr3	Qtr4
2001	8491(1)	7991(1)	7630(1)	7547(1)
2002	8071(1)	7868(1)	7630(1)	7483(1)
2003	7467(1)	7398(1)	7392(1)	7521(1)
2004	7715(1)	7754(1)	7633(1)	7844(1)
2005	7620(1)	7774(1)	7965(1)	7807(1)
2006	7797(1)	7758(1)	7499(1)	7740(1)
2007	7723(1)	7630(1)	7333(1)	7642(1)
2008	7234(1)	7255(1)	6893(1)	6698(1)
2009	5830(1)	6395(1)	6345(1)	6634(1)
2010	6246(1)	6969(1)	6685(1)	7009(1)
2011	6338(1)	6892(1)	7058(1)	6854(1)

But you see from this data, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, (  http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bd  ) that Obamanomics hasn't created as many jobs as his predecessor over the first term.

I bring up Kerry of course, because if I were paying attention then, and I was, then I would of been lectured day in and day out of how bad Bush was, and how much better that we could do.

I was a good student,  I learned a lot.

We aren't even doing a Bush now.

History repeats itself.  So why should I treat this re-election effort any different?  Why shouldn't I expect more?

The Proof of Earlier Post

This year will be no different, while some talk of helping the poor through taxes and government, others give to the poor without taxes and government. Odd isn't it that he who gives more is said to hate more, while he who wants to take more is thought to love more.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romney-gave-1000-times-much-charity-year-biden-gave-decade_652977.html

The Book of Jobs

Obama brags about job creation in his commercial, but he isn't promoting net jobs created.  He's talking about jobs created.

That's a huge difference.

Gross vs. Net.

For the jobs numbers to be impressive they'll simply by reflected in a low unemployment rate.

And its not.

Great commercial though.

Platform

I said to a friend, "I mean we could of told liberals and Democrats that number and its in one ear and out the other.  No they think they have Romney on not caring about 47% but we got them acknowledging the number.  I can't see how that number is a positive for anything but an argument for reform."

What Was With The Cold War

I've been wondering what all the brouhaha over the Cold War for fifty years was all about.  I'm one to wonder what those who defined the showdown between the U.S. and the West vs The Soviet Union and its communist allies as capitalism vs communism would think of how things are right now in the U.S.

I don't even want to get into how relationships with those former, ahem, enemies, has evolved.

But think about it, we got 47% not paying federal tax, we got a $15 trillion dollar debt and more than a trillion dollar deficit.

Most of us get something from government, something more than we put in.  From each according to his ability, to each according to their needs.

A big issue in this election is the rich aren't paying their fair share.

We could of avoided fifty years of nuclear arms build up....

Not part of the 47%

Not part of the 47%, but sure would like to know what's the plan? I mean, almost fifty percent on the dole?! That sounds horrible, to use polite words. And that's not judging. Dollar and cents. When does it end? What's the percent we looking for? Are we trying to turn this around, or are we taking on all comers?

What's The Plan?

Its sunday afternoon, the Steeler's play in a couple of hours so I have time to kill. I turn off the Cleveland-Cinncinati game, walk out to the front porch and open "No Easy Day" where Mark Owen writes, "I found other men just like me: men who feared failure and were driven to be the best." (page ix, Author's Note)

I look up and a man no more older than me rides by. Not in a car, or on a bike,

 but handling one of those sturdy motorized scooters.

What a contrast.

This contrast underlies the quinttessential question of the time for us Americans.

Is this nation going in the right direction?

My liberal friends would caution me here that I'm on the verge of not caring for the poor. But here goes.

I think I see someone elderly in one of those contraptions, I have a generous heart. I see someone my age in one, who I've seen around for years, who I know was doomed for that fate, I'm less generous.

I'm not alone, and you know what liberals, it doesn't make us bad guys, or gals.

What we absolutely don't want to see now, is two, three, a dozen more of these going up and down our street. Escpecially after taxing us to misery.

We have the right to question what direction this country is going in, and its not being racist or against the poor, or against the elderly.

Who's going to pay for this? Certainly not the guy in the scooter, his ink has been in the red for quite a while. Mine? Black. My whole life.

What preventions are you liberals implenting or have in mind to assure me, the stereotypical American male tax payer, that I'm not going to see more and more of guys my age, living a lifestyle to ensure this fate? On my dime.

Its not being poor, its living a lifestyle.

Living a lifestyle that matures into dendency, that wastes one life and ensures a tax on another life.

What's the plan? We had sixy, seventy years of progressive, liberal govenment and has it lessened the number of dependency?

We, those of us living in the black, would like to know, what's the plan that I can appreciate that will help the poor, not add to the poor?

And that, my friend, isn't anti-christian either.

Scrutiny and the Poor

What's the problem with America?

That's easy to answer, a dearth of honest scrutiny.

OH, there is plenty of scrutiny, that's easy to find.  But honest scrutiny?  It's harder to find than the charitable giving of those that say the answer is to tax the rich.

That's intended to show I'm not above my own criticism.  But I look for the other side everyday, I want to uncover what I don't know.  I want to understand why half of America believes in one party, while the other half believes in the other party.  I don't believe in either.

Likely I have an audience of one at this point.  Or two.

I read a post from a friend that quoted Cher.

"If Romney gets elected I don't know if I can breathe same air as Him & his Right Wing Racist Homophobic Women Hating Tea Bagger Masters." (all typos, capitals, and missing definite articles are in the original source, or not)

I think this is one of those quotes that changes every four years to damn the Republican,  erase Bush, insert Romney.

Of course, if you haven't heard how Obama wants to destroy America by now, email me, I want to find out where you've been.

I'm not fighting the battles for Romney or Obama,  I have my preferences, which isn't hard to discern.  I try to be civil, which isn't easy to sustain.  Everyone is so sensitive.

I watched an opinion video, with all the bells of whistles of authenticity, save the disclaimer that it is a farce, that compared the Tea Party to the Taliban.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGAvwSp86hY&feature=share

Scrutiny, or lack there of.

Liberals love to point out the mean and nastiness, the cold-hearted one liners of Tea Party luminaries, but what they fail to understand is that in this nation of two party domination, the Tea Party is the only faction applying scrutiny to the Party nominally on their side.

The critics of the Tea Party love to extract instances of anger and  animosity and wrap the whole movement in it.

But you do that to the liberals or Obama, and they are calling you a racist.

Contrast the two grass roots movements within the two parties, and there is no comparison.  One wants to reduce the size of government to manageable levels, the other wants to tax more.  One side peacefully demonstrates while the other side demonstrates its non peacefulness.

I reckon, that if the Tea Party ever garners the power the left fears, the first beneficiaries of that influence, which would be a leaner, less debt ridden government, would be the left.

But because there is no honest scrutiny, both sides have no real sense of what motivates the other side.

Liberals are often quoting Jesus, and casting Republicans as hypocrites because they want to reduce government.  But I can play the over generalizing game and point out that as a matter of record, the Republicans running for President over the last twenty years have out given, donated more, than their Democrat opponents each and every time, therefore the Republicans aren't hypocrites, the Democrats are.

Its not about not helping the poor, its about how to help the poor.  More government, or more personal.

I'm not a government guy, and that doesn't make me an American Taliban, nor at odds with helping the poor.

Where is the proof that more government is helping the poor, more to the point, where is the proof that more government has alleviated the need for more government?   Which to me is the ends to the means.  Helping the poor with more government when more government hasn't helped to lessen the poor seems a little like wishful thinking to me.

There is certain hypocrisy from the left when their Presidential candidates have been exposed as stingy givers all the while pushing the idea that their opponents don't do enough.

Pushing more government isn't equivalent to adhering to the word of God, and by implication, not advocating more government doesn't put you at odds with helping the poor.

Check out the charitable giving,  that ought to give a better idea of where these politicians stand on the poor.

p.s.

I'm looking everyday, the right is sometimes kooky and paranoid,  just as the left.  But the prize for nastiness and incivility is given to the liberals.  It seems endemic to them, but they wouldn't scrutinize themselves would they?  I've been looking for that too,  but there is no subset, like the Tea Party, on the left holding the liberals to honesty.

Give Him Time

Obviously I'm a political animal, but am I the only one that gives time to the thought and wonder at how all those people who complained every day about the Bush Administration are never heard of, or very little, complaining about the Obama Administration.

Foreign Policy, Economic Policy, Domestic Policy.

I could bore with examples, but why be specific when even the President isn't specific, nor accepting of responsibility.

Responsibility, I remember when even a hurricane was blamed on Bush, the President.  However, we can't pin anything on this President.

Give him time, we are told.  Was John Kerry put off because Bush needed more time?  Should Mitt Romney there fore get the same considerations?

I Like Ike

Here is an interesting quote that I came across while doing opposition research,

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history...and they are stupid.

Attributed to Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican.  I found more information here, on snopes.com.

This seems to make it rounds every four years by partisan Democrats to, in some way, highlight how stupid Republicans are today for following the GOP leaders.  The implication being that Eisenhower was different, and more in line with the thought processes of Democrats today.

Now Republicans may or may not be stupid, but its been my experience in engaging people who I like to call common folk of Republican leanings, that they are typically more informed than their counter parts in the Democrat circles.   I usually refrain from carrying the water of a particular candidate or party, rather I like to instigate the side I don't agree with, but reading the material above, within the context of a pro-Democrat submission, I felt I can take this on too, even if I have to defend Mitt Romney.

To propagate the words of Ike as an argument against the present Republican candidate seemed a little oblivious to me, so I looked it up.  I found a lot of quotes from Ike that would dissuade anyone desirous to promote liberal policies from using his words as a reference point.

Yet they take the quote above,  implication again, that the Republicans vying for office today are intent on abolishing "social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs."

I would think one has to be nearly completely ignorant of Republican ideology, to say nothing of the particular candidate running for office to buy into the idea that the serious candidate before them, as a choice over the Democrat, is going to do any such thing once achieving office.  Party loyalties prevent honest assessment of candidates, in my opinion.

In fact, the most powerful GOP leaders of my lifetime: Nixon, Reagan, Gingrich, and G.W. Bush all, to one extent or another, INCREASED the programs cited above, as well as many more.  But every four years that fear tactic, exemplified by using Eisenhower, of Republicans taking your check away makes its rounds.

Gingrich,  for all the caustic rhetoric thrown at him over the years, merely reduced the growth of federal programs.  Whether you call a reduction of growth a "cut" or not may be a personal prerogative, but its certainly not an elimination.

Romney?  Has he promised to eliminate any vital programs?  I suppose "vital" is a personal prerogative too, but I don't think so.

So if you see this quote, have some fun, go to any of the great sites that documents quotes, like

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/dwight_d_eisenhower.html

and send some Eisenhower right back at them.

I found this one,

We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security.

and this one,

This world of ours... must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

this is a favorite,

Politics ought to be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage.  (Italics added by me)

What I Learned

A brief history of time, not so long ago when I was naive but my fellow countrymen took my hand and showed me the path of righteousness.

I go back now a decade and more, though the awakening within my being to something amiss goes back even farther.  I was ignorant a long time,  it took a long time to get to where I am today.  I have been illuminated.(shout out to my co-conspirators!)

I remember when it was 2001 and we had a new president, and the economy was not so hot, another period of recession in fact.

If you don't recall, and I can't fault you if you can't, the duration of that recession, the unemployment rate, and decline in GDP were in nature milder than they are now.  As you can see from the link above, so don't take my word for it.

It was a horrible time back then,  roughly seven months into this recession, those nuts took out the World Trade Center.  A target selected to impact our economy while we were experiencing a economic set back already.

By November of that year we were out of recession.

Never ones to give George Bush any credit, my Democrat friends explained patiently how miserably the whole situation had been handled by the President.  In fact they also placed all the ills of NAFTA on the President too, though I knew enough that that agreement was signed almost ten years before he came to office!(My first clue something was amiss.)

Oh how I remember when John Kerry and the honorable John Edwards campaigned across the country civilly explaining that millions of jobs have been lost under Bush, and that we can do better!

The unemployment rate in 2004?  A high of 5.7% in January falling to 5.4% at election time. That just wasn't good enough I was taught, and I was a good student.


One thing I remember vividly, and the facts support me, is that the recession under Bush began less than two months after he took office.  Proof, his critics said that his policies have failed.


Alas, Bush won a second term and John Kerry was silenced.  But not the whole Democrat establishment.

For the next two years, with unemployment continuing its free fall to the mid 4%, the loyal opposition groused and groused, day in and day out, about how faulty the President's policies were, and how much better we, as Americans, should expect from our leadership.

In 2006 the Democrat leadership came up with a great idea, take power away from the miserable policies of George Bush and the Republicans in power.

And they Did!

Unfortunately, beginning in April of 2007 the unemployment rate began to escalate from 4.4% to 7.3% by the end of 2008.  That's quite a climb!  Worse than what the nation was doing when John Kerry was saying we needed a change.

Having no regard for what they were teaching me just fours years earlier, nor what they promised merely two years ago, the Democrats nominated a new standard bearer for their party in 2008 -- the eloquent and young Mr. Barack Obama.  Wasting no time, and even less regard for accuracy, the candidate again pressed the issue of the economy, that Bush was at fault and that He(Obama) can do better.

So the Great Recession, as they say, became not a product of the Democrat policies of Congress which usurped power from the President in 2006, but a claim supported by Bush's very own signature on all those Democrat legislative initiatives.

But truth is as you perceive it, and I've wondered how they can sell the "Great" when clearly the recession of the Carter years was statistically worse.  But maybe they knew it was only to get worse when they controlled  both congress and the presidency.

And it sure did!

Today Mr. Obama is running for re-election.  His four years of policies were preceded by two years of Democrat policies in Congress that bore the rubber stamp of George Bush.  Today unemployment is about 8.3%.  A number made worse by the acknowledgement that millions have fallen out of the labor force and are not counted anymore.

And still they blame Bush!

Leadership,  Mr. Kerry taught me, is what this nation sorely lacks.

Or am I not suppose to remember?

Poltics, Politics, Politics

"Politics, Politics, Politics," said Comicus to Nero in Mel Brooks', "History of the World, Part I".

He was trying to be funny, he wasn't.

"When you die at the Palace, you really die at the Palace."

Politics is serious stuff, we all give up a little of our esteem to politicians and parties who will disappoint us time and again, and then boldly go out on the limb for the next party favorite when the cycles begins again.

Esteem?  How else does a Barack Obama gain stature with no previous experience running a large organization.  He got respect from the esteem given to him by people who had esteem to waste.

We'll hand over our esteem when we put a sign in the yard, promote a candidate, and then vote.  I hate doing that.

But I do it every time.  Usually, my esteem is wasted on someone with a dismal chance of winning.  I don't give up much, but I don't have much to give.

Collectively though, someone could use all those small doses of esteem and put it to good use.  Theoretically.

Speaking of theoretically, I recently read a scare tactic about abortion.  Saying Romney will prevent women raped from  the ability to abort their unborn children.  The only thing that came to mind? That's odd,  the GOP women are weary of Romney because they think he WON'T prevent women from killing their unborn children.

That's what party politics get us.  Contradiction.

What about Hollywood ties to the Parties?  The right always uses the the left's cozy relationships with A-listers' as proof  the left uses flash and celebrity, not substance and values, to win elections.  Until that is they use a legendary Actor as a surprise speaker on the big night of the convention.

My personal favorite, something I learned from watching partying politics closely --  its horrible when they do it, but quite alright when we do it.  I can use that on just about everything.

I'm going to spend some esteem now.

Secondary issues hardly seem to change, but are what people use as their reasons for loyalty -- like Abortion, Supreme Court nominations, and social welfare. Even so, there really is a big difference in the candidates this time around.

That to me is a relief, because its usually not the case.


Now maybe those secondary reasons to vote for some are very important for you.  Your primary reasons.  OK,  fine.  I won't fight that,  but the big reason to make a selection this year is the economy.


Collectively, we've all spent a long time muddling in mediocrity.  The last two years of Bush's second term and the first three and a half years of Obama's term have been, frankly, unacceptable.  Economically speaking.

(You think the government is debt ridden now?  Wait till the truth about Social Security becomes common place.  All these unemployed aren't paying into the system.  A system that needs current pay-ins to remain solvent, for a while anyways.  Long term the system will fail anyways,  but that failure point is coming quicker than advertised because the number of workers paying into it has fallen substantially over the last five years.)

We got two candidates that can differentiate themselves in where it matters most for us, the common people trying to make a life for ourselves and our offspring.  I rather be a part of America's lore that did something noble, if not grand.  Not part of the history that left huge, unpaid bills for our kids.

We've had the performance of the amateur.  Now I won't personally disparage Mr. Obama.  No need to, and while I probably slip from time to time, I try to be civil.  But his policies aren't working.  What's more, his penchant for blaming Bush falls on deaf ears for me.

The fact is in 2006 Obama and his cohorts in the Democrat Party ran a national congressional campaign the likes of which had not been seen since 1994 when Newt Gingrich ran a national congressional campaign.

The unemployment rate was around 5%, ( data )  and that just wasn't good enough for the good old boys who knew so much.

They ran and promised better times and better numbers, and they won.  Winning both Houses of Congress.  So they really removed Bush from office with two years left on his term.  Its the history,  not my opinion.

Since then, 2006, the numbers have gotten worse and worse.  Again,  its history, do a google search on any economic benchmark.  GDP.  Unemployment.  Inflation.

Blame it on Bush?  Why when the facts are the Democrats ran on taking power from the 'failed' policies of Bush in 2006 and have been doing it their way ever since.

So back to my story,  its been five and a half years of moribund performance, and its been five and a half years of Obama/Democrat control.

How much longer do we need to recognize it isn't working?  History will judge us on this, not to be too dramatic, but its true.

So if your going to spend some esteem this November,  wouldn't it be more thoughtful to look at the performance and records of the candidates on a matter that is vitally important?

I've seen president come and go, but abortion has never drastically been limited, nor has it ever been unfettered.

Supreme Court Justices do what they wilt, its the law of the land.  Justice Roberts was so demonized by the left when he was nominated, that he threatened to pull out of the circus.  But he didn't and subsequently sided with them on ObamaCare.

Social welfare?  What's so social about leaving a tab for our kids to pay?  The two parties attempt to explain their differences, but they are both going to spend a heck of  a lot on people who need social welfare, its built in and it isn't going to change regardless of which party is in power.

Programs may not grow so much every year(as the budget process allows) under Republican control, but it would be wrong to think they will be eliminated altogether.  (though my hope is for change)

A bad economy for five and a half years is embarrassing.

I'd like the esteem I'm voting with to go to to the candidate without a failed record this time.  You can't say Obama wasn't given a chance.

His campaign motto is FORWARD.  Over a cliff?

In Times Gone By

I've been reading Truman, by David McCullough, a Pittsburgh area native and two time winner of the Pulitzer Prize.  Its a mamoth book on the Democrat President who proceeded FDR.

Legendary basketball coach and President of the Miami Heat, Rick Riley is said to of been so inspired by its in depth portrayals and details that he changed his style of coaching as a result.

I read a lot about a lot, but not so much about Truman, so I'm learning a lot.  Especially a lot about what Democrats where like back in the proverbial day.  Take a moment to read this excerpt from congressional testimony of David Lilienthal, head of the TVA(Tennessee Valley Authority) and prospective head of the Atomic Energy Commission.  He was asked about his stand on communism, which in the day was the big Red Scare and politicians feared them lurking every where.

Regardless, the view on communism is one thing,  his interpretation of what it means to be American, coming from a son of Eastern European immigrants is quite the point for me.

Democrats, do they believe this way today?  Do people who vote Democrat, because they always do, ever think of these things, or think of them this way?

Conservatives do, liberals don't I reckon.  What about President Obama?  Actions speak louder than words, do I have to list the encroachments on personal liberty?

Read and think on this:

I believe in, [he said] and I conceive the Constitution of the United States to rest, as does religion, upon the fundamental proposition of the integrity of the individual; and that all Government and all private institutions must be designed to promote and protect and defend the integrity and the dignity of the individual...

Any forms of government, therefore, and any other institutions, which make men means rather than ends in themselves, which exalt that state or any other institutions above the importance of men, which place arbitrary power over men as a fundamental tenet of government, are contrary to this conception;  and therefore I am deeply opposed to them...The fundamental tenet of communism is that the state is an end in itself, and that therefore the powers which the state exercises over the individual are without any ethical standards to limit them.  That I deeply disbelieve.

It is very easy simply to say one is not a Communist.  And, of course, if despite my record it is necessary for me to state this very affirmatively, then this is a great disappointment to me.  It is very easy to talk about being against communism.  It is equally important to believe those things which provide a satisfactory and effective alternative.  Democracy is that satisfying alternative.

And its hope in the world is that it is an affirmative belief, rather than simply a belief against something else....

I deeply believe in the capacity of democracy to surmount any trials that may lie ahead provided only we practice it in our daily lives.

And among the things that we must practice is this:  that while we seek fervently to ferret out the subversive and anti-democratic forces in the country, we do not at the same time, by hysteria, by resort to innuendo and sneers and other unfortunate tactics, besmirch the very cause that we believe in, and cause a separation among our people, cause one group and one individual to hate one another,  based upon mere attacks, mere unsubstantiated attacks upon their loyalty.... 

As I said yesterday,  I can understand why my grandfather was a Democrat.  But to think that being a Democrat today is the same as being a Democrat back then is mere fiction.

There are a million reasons to be for one party over the other, and we all do find that one weighty issue that defines for us our loyalties, so be it.

Would it be that harmful though to look past some of the innuendos and sneers, against the 'rich' for example,  and do a little internal reflection on what our loyalties, by way of a vote, for a party really support?

Not A Democrat

"Now let me urge upon you:  Get in line, get on the team, do a little work; help make the United States what it must be from now on:  the leader of the world in peace, as it was the leader of the world in war.  I urge you to be good workers in the ranks."

     ~ Harry S. Truman

Now then,  I can understand why my grandfather was a Democrat.

However, have you noticed what the Democrat Party encourages now a days?   Welfare, amnesty, blame it on Bush.

Undeniable.  

That's why I'm not a Democrat. (but not the only reasons)

On Greed

For just a moment, if we can spare one, I'd like to share my thoughts on greed.

Greed is a hot topic for many people now a days if for no other reason than the soon to be GOP nominee for President is a wealthy man.

Admittedly now a tax payer! (There had been some speculation that he hadn't been, but Harry Reid smoked him out.)

Some may never mind that the Treasury Secretary had tax issues, or lack there of, and so did the much ballyhooed oracle of Omaha, and eponymous tax rule proponent,  Warren Buffet.

Let's be frank, we are all greedy.  To those quick to pin that on Romney, as though you've made some profanely and insightful commentary, one question please.  Did you find such an insidious trait in John Kerry?

But its not about wealth then, now is it?  Its really about party politics, and I can spend more than a minute on that, but I want to point out the greed.

I believe its an even more diabolical greed that dwells in the beings of those that don't dwell on the concept that if the government is spending more than its taking in, that's greed too.

I believe that when we have to borrow trillions of dollars, on a yearly basis, that has to be paid back tomorrow, that's greed.  That's out sourcing our future to the Chinese(mostly.)

I believe that when we vote, and we don't pay mind to leaving our children with our debt, we are greedy.

Now Romney may or may not be greedy, any more so than the rest of us.  I don't know.  But I do know that he has asked the lead player inside the beltway with any credence on reducing the debt and deficit to join him in making a case to run this country.

Obama, who may or may not be as greedy as Romney, had a chance to live by his promises, too many to produce, too few fulfilled, but reducing the deficit being one and he failed.  Miserably.

So do we point out the greed in others only and damn the wealthier candidate, unlike in 2004 when the wealthier candidate was John Kerry?

Or maybe lets think about what kind of greed is more detrimental for all of us?

I know this, Romney may have more wealth than many of us, but his efforts to amass that wealth far surpass  the efforts many are taking in their own lives and his taxes paid are doing more for the balance of payments on our greed than many of us commit to, even when its our children that will bear most of the burdens that Barrack Obama and his lot has cast upon us.

Two Sides of the Story

Just yesterday I had an encounter with a clan of Democrats, pure lever pulling Democrats, that could be construed either as direct evidence that Obama is going to win, or quite the contrary, that Obama's base is not fired up, and therefore less likely to show up.

There were about five of them, at a festival, having a good time.  One came right out and asked me if I want to talk politics!  Does shit stink?

But it soon devolved into, on their part, a demonstration of all the nonsensical reasons to vote for anyone, but particularly linked to the liberal left.

Feelings, wasted vote, straight party proclivities.

I attempted one plea,  "Why should I vote for Obama?"  That was after honest assertion that I didn't know who I was voting for in November.   Left unanswered

I also attempted one point, that I was Catholic and cherished religious freedom and that Obama Care is at odds with that constitutional plank.  Lost.

Its not that they couldn't comprehend my concerns if they understood me, but I was left with the impression that they had no idea what I'm referring too.

Catholic Hospitals forced to perform abortions, 'natch.

So there you have it, my contention is that Obama does not suffer from loss of support of the people who voted him in in the first place.  They don't care much about anything other than the letter "d" after his name.

Others may read into the lack of energy and particulars among his supporters as evidence of tepid support in  November -- low turn out.

I'm Sooo Not Alone

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-senate-texas-20120801,0,4846333.story?track=rss

I've been adrift a few days, taking in life, mostly learning; today I got back to the gym and back to giving out my life's advice.

I guess I've been looking for signs that my contrarianism hasn't regressed to individualism because I've been finding them.

Take the story above,  the Tea Party movement is indeed a live and well, and that makes me smile.

I don't know what constitutes membership in the Tea Party, which isn't to say I'm longing to find out, because I do like my own private individualism, albeit with a Republican registration.  I do however feel a kinship with those good people.

Presidential elections, I believe, are the litmus test of Americans.  We dip that stick in the mud every four years and analyse the numbers and results. Obviously, but where I go is that as an individual, what does how I vote mean?  Further, is it a validation or disregarding of any learning I've done in the previous four years, or a turning my back on positions I'd taken since the last election.

The voting booth is sometimes the most courageous event we take, one that sometimes requires a tremendous leap of faith, a blind turn if you will.

That's my generalization, voting is a courageous act, because courage is linked somehow to doing an act that has great trepidation attach to it.  A sense of danger.   Voting has never been that way for me, but based on the statistics, not many people change the way they vote every four years.  Which I find uncourageous because people change and political parties change, although much slower.  Voting based on party loyalty, if not based on principles is also an indication of no personal growth.


For those people, whether they know it or not, voting is a courageous act.  So courageous in fact that many blow it and do nothing but the usual,  pull the party lever.   To hell with that point about immigration or deficit spending that was so vital to hold as the loyal opposition, its the Party on election day, not the principles.

Principles take courage.

Principled also vote for something, not against something.  That would be against principles, unless of course if your principles and the opposition candidate were your only choices.


Yes, if every four years you compromise on your education and principles and vote party, rationale being against the other candidate, that to me is simply lacking courage.  Maybe this year its because this is the most important election ever and the fate of the nation hangs in the balance.  Reflect on twenty years of that rationale and I think its safe to say one's principles aren't so important after all.

A devout liberal or conservative voting Green or Libertarian is likely principled based each and every time, but some of those folks I've run into over the last ten years have complained about so much, but only when as it applies to the other party.

Take this years election.  Hypothetically,  Obama vs. Romney vs. Tea Party.  What would I do?  Principles. Tea Party.  That's for me.  Maybe for someone else its Romney.

We'll see what happens, how the numbers come in on the first Tuesday in November,  hopefully the numbers show a true reflection on the principles of America, not just how lacking in courage we are.  Either way the numbers will become truth, and quite possibly halt the last best chance America has to changing the system or at the very least providing real pressure to change the system.

Occupy protesters were ardent, but disruption in the voting booth is where it matters most.  The Tea Party may be our last best hope.

I'm Not Alone

Just read "Be Evil"  by Anil Dash in the current issue of Wired, 20.08.

Topic matter is the unshackled Microsoft after 9 years of living under the Clinton era consent decree, but what I really enjoyed were the lines about iTunes.


I've been shunning iTunes since iTunes was a baby, but recently I've downgraded my opinions on it even more since I bought my son an iPod a few years ago.  What specifically flames my ire is the ad nauseum request for your username and password.  


What originally repelled me were it share restrictions.  Which for all I know are long gone.

But I thought I was alone, out of touch, and cranky until I read today:

"Renewed aggressiveness from Microsoft could do the whole tech industry a lot of good.  iTunes is as bloated and user-hostile as Outlook was in the '90s.  That old embrace-and-extend mentality could give us an iTunes competitor that would import your playlists and sync your iPod without making you want to gouge your eyes out."

No further comments needed.

Playing Both Sides

I was wrong, but I am right!

Last weekend I cautioned against the tact of using Obama's words about who built what to gain an advantage in this race, as that approach might backfire.  I even posted a day ago that the President campaign began hitting back, very much along my logic.

However, it appears Romney does have something here, and the polls are demonstrating that.

Good for him,  I hope this works to his great advantage.  I do, truly.

'cause if he starts whipping Obama's butt, then I ain't voting for him.

Here's one of the reasons why.

Mitt is going around now saying how the automatic cuts across the budget shouldn't affect the military, he wants monies protected for our defense.

Well, I don't think what we need from a president is a type of leadership that makes it even easier for nothing to get done.

The automatic cuts concept was a result of not acting on budgetary reform as proposed by a commission, the commission that proposed budgetary reform was a result of no congressional reform in the budget, no congressional reform is the product of do nothing, third rate actors playing the role of Senator or Representative.


To hear Romney remove any sliver from the notion of "across the board" just reminds me how close Obama and Romney are, and how far I am from them.  They got to get something done Mitt,  its already been too long.

Austerity is chic, albeit forced, in Europe today.  It should of been here a long time ago, but even now I don't think many of our Leaders know the word.

The Right Stuff

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/23/romney-reprises-obama-build-that-criticism/?hpt=hp_bn3

This is CNN.com finally reporting on the "You didn't build that." fiasco.

You'll find at the end, which in total I thought was a fair piece save that confusing paragraph near the middle, an Obama defense and counter thrust that is effectively my cautionary words a week ago taken up by the Forward campaign.

Also, I wrote yesterday that NCAA penalties levied on Penn State should include vacating the wins during that ugly cover-up era.  I was right on that one too.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8191027/penn-state-nittany-lions-hit-60-million-fine-4-year-bowl-ban-wins-dating-1998

But I'm not one to gloat....

Lose to Win

Ahead of tomorrow's release of NCAA punishments on Penn State, it seems to me that it should begin with the vacating of all the victories accredited to Joe Paterno from the start of his cover up until the very end.

The School as well.  That seems the least they could do, but just a start.

Love The One Your With

I ought to read my own blog posts.

Conservatism is dead and I have no business giving Mitt Romney advice on how to win the minds over.

Forgive me.

Its a shame though, and this President is so out of whack with my values that I have no recourse but to support Romney.

Its tough though, like a recovering alcoholic, I want my conservatism, I crave it at times, I argue for it.  But I can't have it.  I shouldn't argue about it.  I will learn to live without it.

This is the most important election in my lifetime, and the fate of America hangs in the balance.

Until the next election anyways.

Any takers? I got a hundred dollars on ObamaCare NOT getting repealed.  Not very Romney like in terms of cash wagers, but I'm not very Romney like in many ways.

But I'm a whole lot closer to his views than Obama's....bowing to foriegn heads of state?  I'd never do that.

Give To Live

Here is where the GOP needs to go on the flap about success and the American Dream interpretations from the President.

Its not about getting help for success, and its not about government playing a role, for both of those generalities are correct.    What the key to the American Dream is, is a work ethic.

Put an effort into life, and see what you get out of it.  

I'd love to hear Mitt Romney or John Sununu emphasize more of that positive generality than acting aghast about the words of Mr. Obama, which essentially he's earned the right to say, he's an elected President.

In another consideration, did you hear all the people cheering for what he was saying?  Those are wayward voters there.  Generally speaking, not enlighten to the conservative interpretation of American Exceptionalism.  

The tact of the opposition to the liberal reinterpretation I don't think is going to do much to appeal to the intellectual curiosity of the cheering Obama-ites.  It places Mitt as out of touch.  Let the words as the President lay, its not helping.

Promote work ethic.  That doesn't oppose the president.  The people who like the president have their reasons, and they don't likely like being debased for that like.  They'll become defensive, harden their support.

Mitt needs to crack the mindset.  One way maybe to link success as an effort, link taxes as what they are, a deterrent.  Repeat over and over again that the best way for us to move Forward(steal the slogan) is for all of us to put an effort in.

Taxes just rob life, spending too much raises taxes, needing government begets more spending, working hard for your gains in life ends the downward cycle, and precipitates personal vitality.  

That's the conservative message.

Denying government and others help plays a role in success is absurd, we know that Mitt and Sununu and any other GOP politician have spent careers building just the opposite.  Let the first politician who has not tweaked government to encourage success in his or her district throw the first stone.

Much Ado About Nothing

All this angst about Obama saying the American Dream is had with help is much ado about nothing.

What?  You expected him to share the same values as conservatives?

If he did, he wouldn't be a Democrat.

Besides, didn't Hillary write a book entitled, "It Takes a Village?"

Seems like an honest progression.

You don't have to like it, but the reality is he has a constituency with this.  And the other 90% of people who vote for him will adjust their attitudes accordingly.

Keep in mind its a long campaign,  he's going to say things you don't agree with often, no need to get in a tissy every time, if you were in agreement with what he said, you'd be voting for him.

Further reading:

The Big Question

In the wake of the Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare, I've decided, after much thought, to test the waters of liberalism.

I'm now looking, asking, pleading, for liberals, or progressives, to turn me onto the theory of how all this is going to be paid for?

So that I too may be a true believer.

Oh, I'm not talking just ObamaCare,  I'm talking about all of it, the whole expanded governmnent.

And another thing I'd like to know,  where are our limits?  What, if anything, is asking too much of government?  Cell phones, food stamps, housing, and health care are just some of the service provided.  Is it in my purview to ask for more?

I'm thinking maid service.

How about just more?

Surely any rational, thoughtful idea, as mine are, as what everything our federal government provides, can not be looked over.

Evidently there are no responsibilities or expenses that our government can't legislate a service for, there are only needs that have not been identified yet.

How about just a list from everyone?  What do you need?

Why bother, I realize now, to worry about the cost.

Cost?  That's the exception that proves the rule, now isn't it?

For there is one necessity, cost, that can not be legislated away.

But, some would argue, that is what the FED is for.

Et tu John Roberts

Et tu John Roberts.

Conservatism has no role in government any more.

The attacks on church stand, the attacks on personal liberty stand, the attacks on states rights stand.

The individual mandate is a tax,  who knew?  But of course it is, and the Boston Tea Party just delayed the inevitable. 

The United States of America,  a footnote in history.  A freedom loving people, long since gone.  What could of been had they persevered?  We will never know.

Conservatism,  one of the most common sensical ideas of  political theories, but outside the halls of academia it never caught on.  Truth is, academia never liked it anyways.  Its seems limited government has no role in today's society.  

Fortunately many of us will not be around to see how our progeny like paying for all this.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Lord Acton was right and John Roberts has his for life.

Menu Item: Pol du Jour

One of the many reasons why I think we have the problems that we have...

Allegiance to our political parties.

That is foremost on my agenda today, exposing how loyalties to the party are killing democracy and our way of life.

I drove by a house today with an Obama / Biden 2012 placard in the window.  Now I'm the first to concede that there are people out there that ought to support this duo, and I'm not going to condemn them for it.  I may not understand it, but he has a natural constituency.

What was striking about the placard I saw today was that it was in a window of a home of someone I know.

Oh my gosh, right?

But I'd admit that of all my acquaintances, they would be at the top of the list of suspected stooges for the party.

I can't go further drawing generalities out of anecdotal experiences without revealing that after a couple political conversations in the past, when I exposed the strawman for who he was, that he refuses to engage me in politics anymore.

And there you have it,  in microcosm.  An individual, no different from millions of other individuals, who so ardently pimps the party's politician du jour, that he neverminds the particulars of why he's spending his clout on the person at all.

But that is how it is today.  Reverse the party in residence at 2600 Pennsylvania Ave. and I'm certain chapter and verse of all the petty, quasi-villainous, and or immoral behavior of that President could be recited for my distasteful pleasure.

Its behavior from both sides. Though recent history has a plethora of examples where the left just doesn't care that their guy(or gal) is dastardly in much the same way as the scoundrels they condemn on the right.

To deny that is to admit ignorance, and proves my point.

Enron is to Solandra?

Drones are to Patriot Act?

Gitmo is to Gitmo?

Fast and Furious?
....

We can't expect the people we elect to be anything but what they are today, that is unaccomplished bad actors, if we don't scrutinize those who prefer to have us believe we are in their best intentions.

They Don't Get It.

I really like to over think voting.  I do.  For all the weight my one vote has out of over hundred million, I spend an exuberant amount of time thinking about which way to go.

Maybe I don't get it.  In light of my contention that it doesn't matter anyway which of the two major party candidates we elect, that our path is still to ruin, why shouldn't I just free my mind to follow sports unfettered with all this political silliness.

But here I go again.

I was in conversation with my beautiful wife when I let my mind and mouth run off on a splendid diatribe asking what's the point of liberalism today.

They are winning, that is to be sure.  So why aren't they doing what's right,  winning for long term success?  If they did that, people like me, people who think about things like this, would be able to think about other things. Like soccer.

So sorry soccer, until we get this issue resolved, I'm afraid I don't have any time for you.

Here it is, we are getting deep in the election year, and I'm already over thinking the choice we have to make in November.  Obama, and his leftist inclination with an added touch of pragmatism, vs Romney, with his right leaning economics influenced by centrist accommodations.

I'm thinking that neither choice is going to make this government any more sustainable.  I'll give the benefit of the doubt to Romney though, cause Obama left me with no benefits to the doubt I already had about him before he got elected.

Now, obviously, it's clear that Obama isn't interested in creating a sustainable government, in fact it appears his goals are diametrically oppose to rational and sustainable government.  Which of course lies bare the claim of his non-politically allies, that he is indeed pragmatic.

Pragmatism may sound like philosophy, but like obscenity, I know it when I see it.  Getting further in debt with no plan out of it, isn't very pragmatic.

The point to me is, as I've said, this form of Government is unsustainable.

The truth of politics is that the liberals are winning, but they are destroying the prize.  The conservatives are losing, but what they are fighting for is a prize that the liberals would claim, cherish, and call their own.

Democrats do not have to win another presidential election for some time and their agenda will still move forward, the younger Bush Administration is contemporary evidence of that thought.  I accept that, even though I am a conservative.  I'm at peace with their agenda moving forward, my choice for President almost  always loses, but I have my own little way of protesting the direction.  You're reading one way, another is I work to discourage voter turn out.

My acceptance is metaphorically related to reading a good book that you know will end poorly.  Not a romance but a tragedy.  An ugly, historically epic, and equally avoidable yet unavoidable tragedy.  By definition you know it won't end well, but you're enjoying the read, or the life as it may be, so your not counting the pages to the end, you're just wrapped up in the here and now.

I realize this isn't going to end well,  I look upon liberals as the villians in this tale, they are not happy with winning.  They want more.  Not aware of what they have, and unwilling to listen to their countrymen who caution against their lavish spending with money they don't have.

Want to impress me with largess? Craft a system that pays for itself, that has savings and limited commitments. A bank account that could buy other nations, not drag other nations down.

Liberals could aid their own cause,  but while their goal of champion government in all respects moves forward, who are they really helping?  The poor today aren't climbing, that is evident.  With the system we have, tomorrow's generations will have to pay for this spending, thus robbing them of life and prosperity.  That sure doesn't sound like liberalism is a boon to them either.

So liberals want more and to contribute less.  That can't be disputed.  Clearly adding more government, to a government that already is not paying for itself, is asking for more while contributing less.

Help yourselves to restraint and true pragmatism, liberals, please.  For your sake, as much as my own.

I Don't Get It

I was reading this piece posted in the Wall St. Journal by Kimberly Strassel identifying intimidation tactics used by the Obama Administration presumably to silence donors of Mitt Romney's campaign.

Of course I was alarmed, but frankly I'm so skeptical and jaded that 1.)  I don't doubt the allegations, nor am I surprised and 2.)  in my opinion, by and large anyone supporting Obama just doesn't get it.

I'm not talking the intellectual adage of 'getting it', the Aha! moment, the epiphany if you will.  I'm saying they just don't see the information.

I just don't think the vast majority of Americans supporting the Democrat in office are regularly shown the stories that could  effect changes in their loyalty.

How do you fight that?  I tried during the Clinton years.  People trust the party more than the shady allegations.

Let me flipped this now.  Another thing happened to me during the Clinton years, I bought into this notion that is being resurrected by fine Conservative thinkers that this election is the most important ever(of course) because if Obama wins he will roll back the 22nd Amendment.

(I'd like to know if very many Democrats were fed a similar line when Bush was running for re-election in 2004.  I expect it to be so, but my bias would prohibit me from listening long to something so silly, so I don't know with any certainty.)

I'm off the reservation on this one.  Obvious, right?  The 22nd Amendment is the one that term limits the Presidency.  Its also the one that has done the most damage to our fine institution of government, which I have written about often in the past.

The short version is that everyone just waits the President out.  Congressman from the other party?  No term limits.  Third world dictator?  No term limits.  Corrupt bureaucrat?  No term limits.

My answer to allegations that Obama wants to roll back the 22nd Amendment?  If he could do that, I'll vote for him.

But he can't do that.  Can he?

And if he could do that, why run the risk of loosing your re-election, why not just do it now?

If the point is that perhaps he could begin a campaign after his re-election to rally support for a new Amendment to nullify that 22nd Amendment, again, I'd vote for him.

While I think less of the average policy maker, bureaucrat, and Idealogue than I have in the past, I still think we could craft a suitable Amendment with some reigns on a particular over zealous occupant of the White House, i.e. exempting the occupant at the time of passage.  Meaning Obama's terms would conclude before the new law would come into effect.

One would hope.

But no,  I don't see that happening in anyway if Obama gets re-elected.

I read that Bill Clinton is against the 22nd Amendment too,  maybe there is some sort of cell forming here,  ten years from now we could have all these former presidents clamoring for the repeal  that would allow us privileged Americans to pick and choose amongst any number of former failed Presidents to have another crack at it.

I bet we get change then.

On To November

Well technically I still have a choice, but what choice do I really have?

Pennsylvania's primary is coming up, the field is three.  On paper, as they say.  But the empty feeling in my gut may be the working man's blues, or it may be that old time disenfranchised religion.

Romney isn't a bad choice after all.  Much better than McCain or Dole.  He may even be a better choice than Bush the Younger, but before I go that far let's see how he campaigns for the contest in November.  On paper, and in front of the podium, he is well represented and well spoken.  Not since the aforementioned Dole, has a GOP candidate been given so much fodder to run a campaign on.

I think my ultimate choice in November will come down to this.  If Romney runs like Dole I'll take a pass and go third party conservative.  If he is aggressive, like Bush downing McCain in the 2000 primary, I'll vote for him.

I think we'll see the latter.   Despite my protest of the treatment his Super PAC has given his opponents, inwardly I like it.  I'm not hoping for a candidate hell bent on taming the world but I am desirous of a GOP candidate that has the proverbial blood in his mouth.  Rabid to win, willing to be more aggressive than the sheepish Republican establishment.   Despite hammering the guys I liked in this primary season, the way he distanced himself from the PAC was marvelous, and was a Hopeful sign of Change from the typical softball campaign of his predecessors.

Where I've Been

It's been a while, and I'm alright with that.  It happens,  life is busy, I was busy.

I'll tell you a little of what I've been up to.

I know a man who is highly partisan, which is a trait that attracts me like a moth to light on a hot summer day, and I've been in correspondence with him though out the years.  Sometimes we exchange a large volume of emails, sometimes not so much.  In my absence of writing this blog, I've been venting on him.

It isn't fair really, and I'm not so proud of myself.  I loose control and at times really bombard him with opinions and stories that are contrary to his stated opinions and news stories he's shared with me through out the years.  I'm not sure why I do it, and for the umpteenth time I've sworn him off.  I'm not writing him anymore cause the stories and opinions I'd write him aren't really mine, and it just seems like not a nice thing to do, its not genuine.

Bob Dylan sang, and I've used it so many times, "If there is an original thought out there, I could use one right about now."  Frankly, he didn't actually sing it as much as he said it accompanied to music, but there again, I digress.

Why, you may be wondering, would a words smith like myself, a man capable of writing nonstop for hours without end, go through the efforts to email a partisan, someone unlikely to change his opinions, with material that isn't even mine?  What would be the point?

I know, I know!

Understand one thing, the material I was sending him wasn't mine, it was his.

I heard every conceivable and inconceivable thought and position out of this man during the eight years of the Bush Administration, and believe me a rationale mind wouldn't utter some of the rants I was inundated with, that I began to relish the bumbling, contradictory, and ruinous escapades of Barrack Obama and his ilk, just so I could  throw some mud back at my friend.

What was great about the tirade I've been up to, is that all I was doing was throwing his mud back at him.

I thought I could jar his mind loose, but I was wrong.

So I quit.

Again.

That's the problem with partisanship.  These parties will make you look like a fool if you let them.  The complaints about Bush are the same complaints about Obama.  Prove me wrong, and I'll prove me right.

I would love to have an honest debate about policy, but its usually never that elevated.  Its usually just silliness.

I'll leave with an impression today, not from my friend, but from current events.  Mitt Romney, whom I'm on record as not exactly an admirer of, is on the receiving end of that classic wedge tactic of class warfare.  "He  is so rich he is out of touch."

I'm sure my friend would echo that sentiment.  I'm sure of it because I don't think he's missed a negative story, anecdote, or opinion about the GOP in his life.

But to me its irrelevant.  His wealth.  On second thought its actually an indication of his success, which should be relevant.

At one point wealth was irrelevant to the critics of Romney too.  It wasn't that long ago that a very large percentage of them were voting for the fabulously wealthy John Kerry.  Wealth didn't make him out of touch, but it has for Romney?  How do they know?

That's what partisanship does for you.  It blinds you to how what you say or do today is contradictory to what you said or done yesterday.  Politicians love that.

I don't.

Now whats the big difference between Romney and Obama?  Personal wealth isn't the issue.  Unless to say Romney earned his one way and Obama another.

The Time Is Now

Maybe it's time for a man like Newt.

Hear what I have to say.  Does anyone believe that any of these ideas coming out of the debates by the candidates is going to get enacted?  If you do, then I got a bridge for you in Brooklyn.

(That line reminds me, as it is an election year, of the campaign slogan for the 1996 re-election of Bill Clinton.  "A Bridge to the 21st Century."  A lot of people bought that bridge, and as I dislike to point out, the off ramp was, like the Brooklyn Bridge, at the southern point of Manhattan, only Clinton's bridge terminated at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.  Fitting as it is also, Newts latest troubles stem from that era as well.)

So its admitted, we all expect nothing out of these candidates.  A little around the edges, that's all I can reasonably expect.  Even from Newt.

But I'll say this, Newt is the only one that I'd expect to be confrontational.  I think Romney would placate sooner rather than later, and that Santurom would hold out just a bit longer.  I don't expect Newt to ever placate.

He never has.

Newt has done the improbable, winning the House in 1994.  He accomplished much in his time there, that gives me hope that he would change things.  All the sarcasm that a simplistic sentence like that is entitled to, please.

But seriously,  while I can see Mitt and Rick being beaten by the press and the party, I don't think Newt would  succombe to that.  Additionally, lets not forget for the least the type of characters that pass for Senators and Representatives these days.   I guarantee the first critics of Newt Gingrich will be the those Mensa's running Congress.  "How abrasive and uncompromising Newt is."

I would love to hear  Newt tell them to quit their belly aching.

I thought Perry would be a nice antagonist to congress, what with his sharp tongue on part time sessions.  I absolutely expect Newt to be an antagonist.

Its time for an asshole for President.