TFP Column: Selling Stupid

When you've been around sales as long as I have, you begin to recognize who's got a good pitch and who's got a lousy one.  You also wonder how some can manage to make a great pitch with a lousy product and some make an embarrassingly horrible one with a good, or even a great product.

So it was this week, that I began to look at the upcoming November election in terms of both the product that each of the two major parties were pitching, and at the way that they had prepared and packaged their ideas for the voters that they were trying to sell. The result is this week's effort in the TFP, "Selling Stupid", a title which you will understand soon after you begin reading.

Since this effort looks to go up on the website pretty early this week, you'll understand that you have a lot to look forward to.  Not only is the mid-wee 'Star' edition covering the incredible line up of super hero movies coming out this summer, but there's little doubt that this weekend's TFP will, as always, have a few super pieces of its own.

But what else could you expect from Toledo's largest Sunday circulation and Ohio's best weekly newspaper for the third straight year, the Toledo Free Press.  

Too Much Drama, Too Little Effect

I am often astonished and appalled by the increasing amount of phony drama being all but inescapably paraded before us every day.  The juvenile and farcical creation of heroes and villains, of success and failure, and of winners and losers in these awful performances are as spurious as they're sad.

No I'm not talking about the bogus build up generated during the hackneyed and unimaginative (everything but) reality shows that dominate television these days, but about the ever increasing amount frenzy that the political parties and pundits seem to want to find in the run up to the 2012 election.  Of course the campaigns have now drug on so long that perhaps the only way they feel that they can keep the voter's interest is to manufacture a bit of hysteria where each of the candidates is concerned, but the hype of such histrionics cannot be confused with actual interest.

Like a movie director frantically attempting to keep an audience on the edge of their seats for the entire ninety minutes of the movie, all they end up doing is exhausting their audience.  Unable to build higher or even maintain the necessary anxiety for months instead of minutes, they've left all but the most fervent supporters bored with the process, wishing they'd gotten a larger bucket of popcorn so they'd have something to distract themselves with, and waiting for the final credits to roll so that they can escape a theater that's become little more than a prison.

Apparently however, a media that's already gone too far down the path of synthetic stimulation in its offerings to return, and either can't see or refuses to acknowledge that their audience is now mostly unmoved by the shabby performances being given by the bad actors who've taken the stage.  Only the critics (pundits) still seem enamored of the process and able to maintain any enthusiasm (perhaps because they're paid to) for a political puppet show that's gone on for far too long already.  Their continued attempts to exploit any crumbs of excitement dropped in their path are as inept as they are futile.

Perhaps the problem is simply that in today's version of entertainment (and they've turned this process into little else), people are used to far more variety.  If you don't like the reality shows, you can watch the game shows.  If those don't tickle your fancy you can watch a mystery series, a situation comedy, or a classic movie. Food is much the same.  If a steak isn't on your menu of choice, have a cheeseburger.  If you aren't interested in chicken, go Chinese or Mexican or Thai.  The veritable cornucopia of choices laid before us in every aspect of today's society is as varied as it's vast; and even with all of this potpourri available, we often find it difficult to choose.

Not so in politics however.  Not only do many of the candidates begin to run together like the ice cream in the bottom of the bowl on a banana split, but it doesn't take long for us to realize that none of them seems to be different from the others.  The miserable morass that congeals at the bottom of the bowl becomes little more than a tired memory of flavor, little more than imagined by the media serving them.  Sadly in the end, the dish proves mostly tasteless, even while being served in heaping quantities for no other reason than disguise the lack of substance. 

For beyond the individual candidates, we're ultimately left with the same two tired choices that we've looked at for a century.  Oh there once may have been actual differences between Democrats and Republicans, but these days it all seems to taste like chicken, and rubber chicken at that. Voters, long starved of anything of substance to choose from, have finally begun to realize that regardless of which party wins the Presidency, the House, or the Senate; things are likely to go on pretty much the way that they have been. 

And why shouldn't they understand this to be the case?  Republican Administrations expand government as much as Democratic ones do.  Party majorities in the House and Senate make little difference to the mountain of debt and the growing entitlement mentality that Washington continues to embrace and expand.  The mock battles that occur on the floor of the legislature or between it and the White House, more often appear to be both badly scripted and poorly performed, with their outcome as predetermined as a wrestling match.  The dramatic but counterfeit carnage created by these supposedly epic battles proves all but bloodless, and the allegedly hard fought peace that's eventually forged seems more like pointless capitulation than the common ground compromise that the combatants celebrate with a mixture of sadness and ceremony.

While there's little surprise that a weary audience has already lost much of its interest, perhaps there's a method to this madness as well.  Perhaps it's the hope of the two great acting troupes that by wearing down even the most dedicated part of the audience, our gratitude for the process finally ending will be so great that we will at least for a while ignore the fact that nothing has really changed.  Perhaps there is a method to the madness of the lengthy performance of this tawdry play, with the directors working feverishly behind the scenes to manipulate the 'sheeple' that most have become into quietly returning to the herd.

And while some few may remain untouched, crying out in anguish at the tired melodrama that they've been subjected to for little amusement and no entertainment; most will instead gratefully return to find out which "American Idol" will next be "Dancing with the Stars", and celebrating the political actors that haven't been voted off "Survivor: Washington DC".  Few indeed will recognize that the real "Undercover Bosses" of this nation have once again worked their magic, and that it's only in their efforts that we discover that "America's Got Talent".  It may make for little more than a Bread and Circuses form of entertainment for the masses, but for me it's far to much drama for far too little effect.

Bi-Partisan Compromise ... Phooey

The only thing that aggravates me more than the mind-numbed robots endlessly repeating the left-wing mantra that all of our current problems are the responsibility of George W Bush, the Republican Party, and Fox News (with occasional tips of the hat to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the rest of right-wing talk radio); is listening to their counterparts telling us that its all the fault of the man behind the curtain Barack Obama, the scarecrow Harry Reid, and the Wicked Witch of the West Nancy Pelosi.  

Oh don't get me wrong, GWB deserves his share of the blame, as do the rest of this cast of characters and a few more besides.  In fact the list is a rather long and distinguished one, going back to the 30's and including such luminaries as presidents FDR, LBJ, Richard Nixon, and Jimmy Carter; along with Senators such as Bob Dole, George Mitchell, Trent Lott and Tom Daschle.  While we're at it, let's add in some current and former Speakers of the House like Sam Rayburn, Thomas 'Tip' O'Neill, Newt Gingrich, and John Boehner. 

You see, much as I hate to admit it, President Obama was right when he said that "we didn't get here overnight".  Of course he misused one of the only statements of fact that he's made since taking office; but the truth remained that the problems we face now have been brewing since long before the current President ran for elective office at any level.

As for the idea that all of this can be solved by some bi-partisan compromise ... please.  After all, wasn't it such bi-partisanship during the FDR Administration that got us Social Security in the first place?  Hasn't it been some bi-partisan shenanigans that have allowed politicians in Washington who have known for decades that Social Security was eventually going to go broke, to do and say nothing?  Isn't the only compromise that Democrats and Republicans have reached about the national pension program in recent years one involving adding people that were never originally intended to be a part of it? Bi-partisan spirit in Congress has done little more for this program than to trade its imminent failure for the votes of those protected by it.

As for health care, it was wage and price controls implemented under FDR during WWII in a bi-partisan spirit that got employers into providing health care insurance for workers instead having them pay their own medical costs in the first place.  Not content with setting us on another road to failure however, they made an additional bi-partisan effort with the 1965 Social Security Act, creating Medicare and Medicaid in what amounted to another government attempt at wage and price controls, this time for health care. 

Not only did their compromised effort prove a dismal failure, but with these two new programs, States were now conscripted into the no-win game as well.  Costs continued to go up and increasingly successful (and expensive) medical technology insured that this bi-partisan effort would eventually become another financial monster.  How did our bi-partisan Compromisers answer dawning awareness of another government program that was on the verge of collapse?  ... by adding insult to injury with bi-partisan passage of prescription drug coverage under G W Bush.  No longer content with poisoning what little is left of private sector health care however, the Obama Administration decided to strike the next blow in nationalizing health insurance and health care in the US with what has now become known as Obamacare.  Early analysis of this most recent effort (which surprisingly was not bi-partisan, but a partisan lack of compromise on the part of Democrats) tells us that Government has once more worked its magic, and things will be getting more expensive much quicker than they had been, under the control of a government that can't afford them.

But let's not focus on the big three (now four) entitlement programs as the limits of compromised bi-partisan disaster.  Doing so might cause you to miss other government support programs passed over the years like food stamps and subsidized housing by a legislature ripe with bi-partisan compromise, in an effort to create a dependent class while spending other people's money.  It would also mean that you had failed to take notice of the legislative alphabet zombies that now stalk the land and cannot seem to be killed.  The IRS, DEA, and EPA may be the most infamous of these bogeymen; but the HHS and DHS (and its minions of the TSA) have mandates and budgets that are growing almost as quickly as their public unpopularity. 

Why should any of this make you angry?  Because we let all of this fraud, waste, and nonsense be spoon fed to us in the spirit of the bi-partisan compromise that legislators told us was required to make government work.  Republicans and Democrats alike not only continued to support failed programs, worthless subsidies, and useless departments, but added to their numbers and budgets in a truly bi-partisan fashion that has run up the debt to what was once an unimaginable number. (Feeling compromised yet?)  

So now we're told that the problem is the rancorous language of partisanship in Congress; and the only thing that can save us is Bi-Partisan Compromise. 

Bullshit! 

The problem is that professional politicians, who won't have to utilize the monstrous programs that they've compromised the rest of our futures with, are sitting fat and happy on great pensions and medical coverage that's the envy of the world.  Having secured their own bit of the American dream they are once again trying to stir up voters in the months winding up to an election with nonsensical rhetoric about bi-partisanship. While legislators continue to do nothing to fix real problems in this country, party spokesmen and political pundits drone on about the lack of bi-partisan compromise to provide political cover for the inaction of Congress.  Well, I've got a compromise of my own that might gain broad bi-partisan support: 

Do your job (for once) and we'll think about re-electing you.

Will Republicans Be Good Winners?

"There's nothing to winning really. That is, if you happen to be blessed with a keen eye, and agile mind, and no scruples whatsoever." 
- Alfred Hitchcock 


I thought about this on the day after the election, as Republicans and Conservatives (they are overlapping, but not congruent terms) were celebrating their electoral victory. Don't get me wrong, I was happy that they won (Conservatives, not necessarily Republicans). Unlike the president and most of the 'slipstream media' (so named because they appear to be dropping further and further behind in the wake as a legitimate news source), I did in fact take this victory as a repudiation of the policies (not necessarily the people) of the last two years. 


It certainly appeared that the American people in general and the Tea Party Movement members in particular were fed up with a government interested in passing sweeping omnibus legislation without knowledge of its contents and against the strong objections of voters. Since this is a representative republic, those voters appeared more than willing to reject representatives who don't represent, and turned out elected officials who chose party solidarity over meeting their job description. I was also pleased with the humble tone that at least that prospective Speaker of the House John Boehner took in speaking about the victory. It actually appeared that he understood the limited license that had just been granted, for this was not as much an endorsement of the Republicans as it was a repudiation of the Democratic agenda of the last two years. While many of the Democrats do not appear to be good losers in this contest, I wonder how many Republicans will be good winners. 


This is not about turning out more Democrats (including the president) in two years as the current minority leader in the Senate Mitch McConnell, seems to believe. Neither is this about running up a score in either the House or the Senate. Mr McConnell seems to be confusing elections with some form of athletic contest where the concern of those on the sidelines is nothing more than which team wins. While I am sure that there are some in the country who may believe that way, recent elections have shown them to be the minority. How else do you explain the regular turn over of Congress in recent years? The American people by and large are not fanatics for one side or another in the game (and are increasingly looking for a 3rd alternative), but instead want government to serve their needs. 


True, there is certainly some debate and confusion as to what those needs are, how they should be served, and what role government should play; but that's what's really being contested in recent elections. Republicans, after years of laboring in the minority, got their chance to set the agenda in 1994 when after writing their "Contract For America" they took control of the House and Senate and proceeded to squander it. 


After a few months of grandiose speeches and token efforts, things went back to business as usual and government continued to grow in scope, scale, and level of personal encroachment. Republicans sent to Washington not only stood by and watched it happen, they often caused it. They got the White House back as well in 2000, which you think would have allowed them to do what voters actually sent them to do, but the budget and government continued to grow and become ever more intrusive. 


Little surprise then that by 2006 voters had gotten fed up with more of the same and turned them out, and by 2008 had repudiated their lack of principles decisively. Now only two years later, they find themselves returning to control of at least one House of Congress. What will they do and how long will they do it for? 


Will Republicans stand on the principles that they espoused in campaign speeches while seeking office and gaining the favor of Conservative and Independent voters, or return the the parasitic policies that both they and the Democrats seem to favor; regardless of the increasing damage that it does to the taxpayer host? Will they attempt to walk back some of the over-reaching of government that both parties are responsible for over recent years or make merely token efforts that can be noted by the media and pointed to in their next re-election campaign? 


As they consider these questions, as well as their duties and responsibilities, Republicans (and Democrats as well) might do well to remember the words of long-time Alabama football coach, Paul "Bear" Bryant: 


"When you make a mistake, there are only three things you should ever do about it: admit it, learn from it, and don't repeat it."

The Cost of Politics

The latest round of primary elections are over around the nation. Voting machines have been taken down, poll workers are taking a well-deserved rest, and everyone has a chance to catch their breath before the run up to the November Election. Most importantly, we all find ourselves grateful in ways that we cannot begin to explain for the end of the latest round of political commercials on billboards, radio, and TV. And while it appears that fewer than one in five registered voters executed their electoral franchise in the effort overall, we seem to have run up a considerable bill in the performance of this constitutional right and obligation. 


My question is ... why are we paying for it? Yes I know that elections cannot be held without candidates (though there are times when we wish it were so) and that such elections incur costs. I also understand that there are times when more than one candidate representing a political party seeks the same office. Great! Anyone who wishes to run for a political office is free to do so. That there might be a plethora of candidates seeking office could be looked at as a tribute to the desire for public service in this country (or a realization that a political career is a pretty good gig in a tough economy), and is something that should celebrated.  What's wrong with letting any eligible and capable candidates seeking election do so? 


Some will say that while all of this may be true, winnowing the number of candidates (particularly those of the two major political parties) is necessary so as not to dilute the few votes seemingly cast these days. Of course most of those saying so are representatives of the political parties taking advantage of the situation. Even if we concede that this is true however (which I do not), it doesn't justify billing the taxpayer for the costs of an internal party selection process. 


If the Democrat and Republican parties (which are independent political organizations and not constitutionally sanctioned parts of government) feel the need to hold such special selection processes to choose party representation, they should by all means feel free to do so ... and pay for them from their own pockets. It is not within the purview of government to interfere with such an internal process, nor to sanction it by picking up the tab. 


At a time when political parties have become as much an impediment to good governing as they have a method of achieving it, they certainly deserve no special consideration. At a time when government spending has become little more than a political football that these two teams toss around to score political points, wasting tax payer dollars to fund their drafts seems a violation of the rules. 


Political parties are not a Constitutional requirement, and the current ones are in fact only the latest in a long line of such organizations (now mostly forgotten) in this county's history. Assigning them special preference and paying for internal decision making processes seems not only contrary to the founding principles of this country, but outside the limits of government as defined by the documents used to establish it. 


The party politics of government is often one of the reasons for its high cost. Continuing taxpayer funding for these political qualifiers is a political cost however that's simply wrong.

Party of One ...

I watched a number of the speeches from the recent Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last weekend on C-SPAN (yes, people do actually watch this channel), and was pleased by a number of the concepts and sentiments expressed. One of the things that particularly struck me was that while it was assumed that these principles are more in line with the Republican Party than with the Democrats, neither of these parties is allowed to call the resurgent conservative movement their own. The Tea Parties likewise seem to be successfully resisting the siren song of those desiring them to become the most conservative and vocal part of the Republican Party. Even Libertarians, who epitomize truly conservative thought by an organized political party (and sometimes it's a stretch to use organized when speaking about Libertarians), do not get ownership rights to this movement. 


It occurred to me while processing all of this information that in fact many more candidates than ever more are running for office without seeking the approval, support, or funding of the two major political parties. The concept of the truly Independent candidate is becoming as much the rule as the exception in politics today. Now the argument made against these independent candidates is that without party affiliation, they will find their battle to achieve office more difficult. 

So what! 

Achieving elected office is a pretty good gig these days and no well paying job is easy to get. Why shouldn't they have to work hard for it? We are told that funding will become much harder to find for such campaigns, since they don't have the traditional support afforded to candidates of the two major parties. I find these comments rather disingenuous, since they usually come from people representing those two major parties, and often by the very same people who decry the overabundance of money in politics. 


We are likewise told that un-allied neophytes to political office will be much more likely to fall under the sway of evil lobbyists. It seems to me however, that our "experienced, professional politicians" have done an admirable job of falling prey to the mesmerism of these bottom feeding drones, so I see little to concern me and absolutely no proof that the situation will become worse. We are told that only through bi-partisan compromise between the two major parties can government steer the country on its proper course. 


Well the Democratic and Republican parties have been around for well over 100 years, and the most cursory examination the course they have charted for the country looks like the zig-zag sailed by a vessel attempting to navigate waters under open submarine warfare. (Come to think of it, this course also seems like one we would see under the control of drunken sailors, the same comparison we often use when discussing their spending habits.) Besides, I haven't noticed a lot of bi-partisan compromise going on lately, regardless of which major party is in power, so why should my support be based on such a concern. 


We are finally told that if such people are elected to office, that they will be able to accomplish little while in office. It is said that without party allies, they will not be able to advance an agenda. My response to this is, "What's wrong with that?" It's not like I approve of much of what either major party in government has been accomplishing lately. 


Perhaps if politicians were able to accomplish less for a while (or nothing at all for that matter), the country would be better served. The bottom line here is that in a country governed by a representative republic (which is what we are, not a democracy) citizens elect from among themselves people to serve the interests of their constituents and not that of a national political party. 


The current state of the republic in this country often seems to have gone terribly wrong however by putting party loyalty ahead of constituent loyalty. I therefore have no problem at all with the current crop of Independent candidates, and in fact welcome their entrance into the political process. If this is the only we can get back to having elected officials truly representing the interests that they are supposed to be, then I believe that more of us should embrace these Parties of One.

It's Not My Party, But I'll Cry If I Want To

Being a Constitutional Conservative leaves one often in a rather lonely place politically. While I have registered with the Libertarian Party as that closest to my thinking, even many of their positions do not come into alignment with my own. This apparently outside-of-the-box positioning however leads me with some things that I would like to say (or more accurately whine) about where political parties are concerned today in the US:

__________

Listen, I have nothing against Democrats and in fact considered myself one in my youth. (Hey, I did grow up in Chicago after all, where being Republican was damned near illegal.) I believe however, that you have been led astray by a well educated, self seeking, power elite that have taken over your party's message. 

Where once you were the party of the little guy, trying to make sure that everyone in this country got a fair chance at achieving their piece of the American Dream; you now appear to have been led down an egalitarian path. The focus is no longer on equal opportunity, but on equal results. Your support of the union member has now evolved into a support of the union leadership. Intent on attacking big business and the bloated rich that you demonize in this country (in spite of the fact that they pay the government's bills), your leadership now appears oblivious to big unions and the bloated fringe interests of environmental concerns and animal rights. 

Who in fact is more evil these days, GM or the UAW? (Oh wait, they're the same thing.) Who is more onerous and odorous, Exxon or the Sierra Club? Who cares less about animals than they do about the exercise of power within government, the beef industry or PETA?

The truth of the matter is that any large organization, on either side of a given issue, is prone to egregious influencing and extortion of elected officials. Look around you with unclouded eyes., you may find that you have been led astray. 
 

__________

As for Republicans, I have nothing against you either, and in fact considered myself one in my youth (a bit later on, of course). I believe however, that you have been led astray by a well educated, self seeking, power elite that have taken over your party's message (hmmm, that sounds vaguely familiar). 

You have abandoned your core beliefs in fiscal responsibility and small government, choosing instead to become the party of "somewhat less than the Democrats". Once the supporter of Capitalism and a free market-based economy, you now attempt to defend corporate bailouts, increased government handouts, and limited wealth redistribution. Far from being a party with a clearly defined message, you are now being told by your own leadership to accept ideals and concepts which were previously anathema to your principles in the name of creating a "big tent". Even worse, you allow your party of opposition to define what that big tent should be. Circuses have big tents my friends, but that doesn't mean that we will vote for the clowns. 

__________

Libertarians, you are nearest and dearest to my heart these days; but you have taken the concept of a political party to a level of disorganization that almost reaches an art form. This lack of basic organization skills makes your fund raising difficult and hinders your inclusion on the broader field of American politics. 

Far from trying to change this however, you glory in the internal anarchy and take pride in your self-imposed fringe status. In the name of such worthy causes as limited government and the 2nd Amendment, you have seemingly taken under your wing every anti-government cause on the planet. In the hope of increasing your power base, you embrace fringe groups that often scare your staunchest supporters and allow others to demonize the very freedoms that you seek as "wacky". 

As a Constitutional Conservative, I simply ask that each of the political parties of this government follow the dictates of the document that defines it and limits its powers. The Constitution, contrary to the belief of some, was not created as an 'organic' document and is not subject to the opinions of either the Executive or Legislative branches of the government or the whims of politicians, as seems far too often to be the case these days. Even the Supreme Court is limited in the interpretive oversight that it has on this document (though there are times when you would be hard-pressed to convince them of that.) 

It is the framework that supports the freedoms that protect us, and should be treated with appropriate respect as a consequence. I ask only that the branches federal government simply follow the guidelines in this document as set out by the Founding Fathers; and if they find them too limiting and wish to in some way change them, that they do so through the Constitutional processes provided rather than through creative interpretation. (For those of you who have not read this document lately, they call these Amendments.) 

I truly believe in these dangerous days that none of the political parties (and few individuals except perhaps, some of the more well-informed groups that came out of the Tea Parties) limit themselves to this simple rule-of-thumb, and that makes me rather sad. 

It's a terrible thing in this country to discover that the elected leaders who took an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" have mostly abandoned it either through willful neglect or carefully orchestrated deceit.

So I cry out against each of you; Democrat, Republican, and yes even Libertarian as I paraphrase the lyric: "It's not my party, but I'll cry if I want to". And as the line continues from this song from my youth, "You would cry to if it happened to you." My friends, it is ... 

(By the way, did you know that the expression "rule of thumb" came from English common law, wherein a man was allowed to legally beat his wife, so long as the stick used was less thick than his thumb. Perhaps the practice is worth reviving, only this time for use on recalcitrant politicians.)
 

Flying On One Wing

There seems to be a lot of discussion among both Republicans and Democrats lately about how the Republican Party is going to become little more that an afterthought in American politics if they don't reject their Conservative ideology (and / or those who hold it) and become more like moderate Democrats. 

I have to say that I find all of this rather curious. From the Democrats, who seem to normally be rather savvy political strategists, my curiosity is simply that of political competition. "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." said Napoleon Bonaparte, who was not a bad strategist himself. So why are the Democrats trying to interrupt the Republicans from self-destructive behavior. Behavior which, if it should succeed, would leave the Democrats in power indefinitely? Why would you do your political enemies the favor of presenting them with advice to keep them from failing? 

Not being a Republican, I have no stake in whether they pay heed to advice from their political enemies, but I would caution them as Virgil once did, remembering Troy, "I fear Greeks, even when they bring gifts".  

As to the Republicans, rejecting what is supposed to be the core Conservative beliefs of your political party in the name of political victory likewise seems a bit self-destructive. It also seems adopting the beliefs of your sworn political enemies might be more than a little self-defeating. For assuming that you do so, even if should win the electoral battle as a result, you would lose the ideological war in the process. 

This is not to say that I believe that only those who hold a strict Conservative point of view on every subject should be allowed to call themselves Republican. There are many kinds of Conservatives: fiscal and social to name but a few. All of those who call themselves conservative in one area do not necessarily call themselves conservative in all others should not lose the title as a consequence. 

I would likewise say that calling yourself a Republican while rejecting all of the core beliefs of the party does not make you one any more than calling yourself a Catholic while rejecting the leadership of the Pope and the precepts of the Church would make you one. In order to be a member of a given group one must at least give credence to those basic principles. 

So to Democrats who would like to assume a liberal tone and tenor and lean as far to the left as they can, I would applaud your efforts even while disagreeing with you to my very core. It is your right and none may take it from you. For Republicans (and again let me state that I am not one), I would tell them to lean as far to the right as you chose and ignore the naysayers from within your party and without. This too is your right and none has the ability or authority to make it otherwise. Perhaps after all, we need more than a bland center to politics that some seem to believe is the ideal. 

We need both the left and the right to precipitate lively discussion of the issues, to excite the electorate in what can otherwise be a rather tedious process, and to inspire a spirit of competition that brings out the best of both the left and the right. 

Actually, all of this reminds me of the heady, but politically incorrect days of my youth, when drinking to excess was not only considered normal and accepted; but quite frankly was almost expected. In those days, one of the constant crowd challenges was, "Come on kid, have another. You can't fly on one wing." So my advice (for what it's worth) to both the Democrats and Republicans is, forget complaining about all of this right wing / left wing factions of your parties, because after all, you can't fly on one wing.

 

Are There Consequences For Lying?

How many times have you been reminded of the George H W Bush speech in which he said, "read my lips, no new taxes" over the years? Hasn't this often been pointed out as one of the key quotes that sent Mr. Bush to the showers, and ushered in the Clinton presidency?

Well the shoe may be on the other foot these days, whether the mainstream media chooses to talk about it or not. In an August, 2007 Town Hall meeting video, Rep. Paul Kanjorski (Dem., PA) admitted that the Democratic Party may have lied in telling the American public that a Democratic takeover of the house would get us out of Iraq. 

This video has since been released on UTube, and along with some additional information on the following posting. http://conservablogs.com/publiusforum/2008/05/24/democrat-admits-democrats-lied-about-stopping-war/ In it, Rep. Kanjorski is pretty candid about the Democratic party having "stretched the facts" in order to take over a majority of both House of Congress. This hasn't gotten a lot of traction in the mainstream media, and because of this, one has to wonder if it will have any impact. With another election less than 6 months away, one has to ask if similar consequences are in store for them during this next cycle.