TFP Column: Dumb and Dumber-er in politics

As proof that there is not only a quirky, but perhaps even benignly evil bit of timing between real life and cinema, it’s hard not to notice next week’s release of a movie that would have probably have been better served by being left alone to die long ago: “Dumb and Dumber.” While it’s perhaps unfair to disparage “Dumb and Dumber To,” film that has yet to be released (although judging by the trailers already out there, not releasing it would be doing it, its producers, and the viewing public a favor).

I’m talking of course, about the occurrence and results of this week’s mid-term election, where the Republican party attempted to exhibit the real-life version of the “Dumb …” franchise by attempting to get away from the stigma of being the ‘Party of No’ by having no national concept of what it was they stood for. Dumber of course, being portrayed by the concept of Democrats attempting to show that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery by running candidates with the same predilection for ‘hoof in mouth disease’ that the Republicans did during the previous election cycle.

Proving that it’s often better to be lucky than good however, Republicans somehow managed to get re-elected a Senator who established his Kansas residency by claiming to rent a recliner from one of the constituents in his district. Democrats countered with lunacy straight out of “Mad Men” that their constituency could fight the ‘War Against Women’ by telling those of the fairer gender not to worry their pretty little heads about such complicated things as the economy, unemployment or foreign policy as long as someone in government would guarantee them a federal health subsidy for their uterus.
Republicans promoted change by running the same tired faces that they’d been showing up with since Clinton, while Democrats attempted to prove that that the American voter, while blind, misinformed and generally disinterested, seldom turns out to vote for a slate of candidates that the national party has already acknowledged as likely to lose.

Pundits on both sides may debate which candidates committed the greatest faux pas on this year’s campaign trail, and they’ll have a surprisingly large and bipartisan list to choose from. One that you won’t see, however, is the Democratic Party announcement to focus its money and effort on governors’ races to the detriment of their efforts in the Senate.  (How did that work out for you, by the way?)

The Senate Minority Leader (soon to be Majority Leader) and the President each held their press conferences Wednesday to discuss the meeting that they’re going to have later this week about the agenda of the upcoming lame duck Congressional sessions coming soon. (Only politicians consider the meetings about their meetings about their meetings of any real import.)
 
Both of these public statements continued to fulfill the promises of “Dumb and Dumber” by wasting the electorates’ time recapping what we already knew. Mitch McConnell said that he knew who the President is and vice versa  (thank you Captain Obvious). The President, meanwhile, reminded us of his continued promises to do something about the nation’s problems if Congress didn’t (difficult when both were on break to run for office). Both mentioned their willingness to compromise in such a way as to make it abundantly clear that neither really was.

Little mention was made about the money involved in this year’s election, since Democrats spent more than Republicans and (according to Fox News) that the $4 billion total was a fraction of what the nation spent on Halloween costumes and candy. The only entertainment left out of today’s session was the one never heard that: “Elections have consequences.”

Never fear however, the next sequel is just around the corner. By the end of 2015, the next election cycle will be in full swing again and most of Congress will return to becoming too busy running for their jobs again to actually do them. I hear that they’ve even got a working title for it: “Dumb and Dumber – Bush vs Clinton Again?”

The "Stuck on Stupid" Dictionary #39

In what may in fact be the real first sign of Spring, the lazy lexicographers of the SOS Dictionary have apparently come out of their hole, failed to see their collective shadows (which would have been difficult at best, considering the bloodshot conditions of their eyes), and decided to stay out in the fresh air for a bit.  (This had nothing to do with locking the door behind them after their 'temporary exit' I'm sure.)  Their efforts are at best sporadic and at worst all but nonexistent recently, and Senior Staff felt obligated to try something new.  Having given up on the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) for assistance, we have instead contacted Lindsay Lohan's people to recommend potential detox facilities.

Having all but reconciled ourselves to a level of production consistent with the output of common sense from the federal government is a bit disappointing, but not entirely unexpected.  Their chemically-induced maunderings however still manage to pass Senior Staff editorial muster; so we print 'em when we get 'em.

Such inconsistent production however, means that there may actually be those of you reading this who have somehow managed to miss previous postings on this subject (shame on you, now go back and search all of the postings under the label of  'Dictionary').  For those of you thus unfamiliar, the SOS dictionary is a reference guide to terms which nominally mean something to the rest of the English speaking world, but appears to mean something entirely different when looked at through the jaded eyes and rose colored glasses of the SOS dictionary staff.


Democrat

1.  A Member of a political party whose opinions (sometimes also called feelings) on a given issue can run from fiercely Conservative to wildly Liberal.
2.  A Member of a political Fraternity House that is indoctrinated with the concept that loyalty to their fraternity brothers and sisters is of far greater importance than that to the constituents who elected them
3.  A Member of a self-appointed aristocracy who consider themselves through such party participation to be a representative of a political elite (which they falsely like to believe is a meritocracy) that makes them far better, smarter, and prettier than the rest of those outside their group; and therefore entitled to special privileges as a consequence.
4.  A Member of political team whose largest ambition is to score more points than their opponents, regardless of consequences to fans in the stands or the condition that the field will be in when the contest is concluded.
5.  A member of a political party that is in turn part of a larger rule-making body (you know, kind of like NASCAR, the NHL, the NFL, the NBA, MLB, or the NCAA) who rule by fiat; and with the clear understanding that none of the rules they create can apply to them. 
(See Republican)

 
Republican

1.  A Member of a political party whose opinions (sometimes also called feelings) on a given issue can run from fiercely Conservative to wildly Liberal.
2.  A Member of a political Fraternity House that is indoctrinated with the concept that loyalty to their fraternity brothers and sisters is of far greater importance than that to the constituents who elected them
3.  A Member of a self-appointed aristocracy who consider themselves through such party participation to be a representative of a political elite (which they falsely like to believe is a meritocracy) that makes them far better, smarter, and prettier than the rest of those outside their group; and therefore entitled to special privileges as a consequence.
4.  A Member of political team whose largest ambition is to score more points than their opponents, regardless of consequences to fans in the stands or the condition that the field will be in when the contest is concluded.
5.  A member of a political party that is in turn part of a larger rule-making body (you know, kind of like NASCAR, the NHL, the NFL, the NBA, MLB, or the NCAA) who rule by fiat; and with the clear understanding that none of the rules they create can apply to them.
(See Democrat)

Quantity Isn't Quality

One of the joys (sarcastically speaking, of course) of writing about politics is the necessity of listening to the speeches of their national conventions. These carefully crafted efforts have often become the launching pads for future political careers, as well as defining moments in elections, and as such these opportunities are carefully awarded.

Don't worry, I'll spare you any careful analysis of the shaded truth, jingoistic wisdom, and outright lies that we were subjected to in back-to-back conventions to talk instead about the sheer abundance of rhetoric that voters were subjected to by echelons of representatives. There was plenty of analysis during the conventions after all, and thank goodness they're finally over.  As we examine the sheer volume of bloviating however let's at least not that there was indeed a hierarchy to the performers and to the time allotted to deliver 'a few well-chosen words'.

Tier 3

These are the cheerleaders encouraged to whip the crowd into a frenzy with their inspirational orations before the main act, and their time is limited. Former White House Chief of Staff and now Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emmanuel for example, delivered a speech of some 1257 well chosen words; in a modest bit of bombast; and Democratic Keynote speaker San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro delivered an effort of just less than 2100 words at the pinnacle of his convention's Tier 3 efforts.

By comparison, Republicans trotted out up-and-comer Florida Senator Marc Rubio, who graced us with 1735 words. Surprisingly (and perhaps even suspiciously), New Jersey Governor Chris Christie delivered an effort of identical length; apparently not realizing that as Keynote Speaker, he had been awarded a larger allotment. 

Speaking of suspicious, I couldn't help by notice that former Governor of Arkansas and now Fox News personality Mike Huckabee delivered a speech of exactly 1776 words (something which I'm sure should be considered simply a patriotic coincidence for those without tin-foil chapeaus).

Tier 2

These higher ranking spokespeople are normally the spouses of the candidates which are used by them to explain their significant others; and this year both delivered reasonable efforts of greater lengths. Mitt Romney's wife Ann, evidently well-versed in rhetoric and numeric protocol, delivered a pronouncement of some 2331 words. It was greater than her Tier 3 predecessors, while allowing room to grow for those to come after. 

First Lady Michelle Obama, understanding that being is more than seeking, used her slightly greater status to give us about 3034 well-chosen words on her and her husband's behalf.   (Though perhaps such length had to do with the fact that even after 3-1/2 years in office, we know less about her husband than about any other person on the planet.)

Much like the GOP in Tier 3, Democrats had a celebrity Tier 2 speaker this year in the form of former President Clinton; whose status as a former Tier 1 put him greater in this Tier 2 arena (as did his performance). Being a savvy campaigner who apparently missed the big stage, President Clinton held onto the spotlight long enough to deliver 3190 words to insure everyone understood his abilities and his stature (current and former).

Tier 1

Tier 1 is reserved for the candidates and running mates, and they were well aware of it. Mitt Romney's selection, Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan came through with an effort of some 3229 words (slightly more than Clinton even without knowing). Our current VP Joe Biden came in only slight less with 3063 words.  In spite of extensive research, I was unable to discover if this lesser number had to do with feelings of inadequacy where Ryan and Clinton were concerned, or simply the Democratic party's heroic attempt to provide Biden less opportunity to produce a gaffe that even MSNBC couldn't spin.

When the candidates at the top of the pyramid took center stage, they too seemed naturally or artificially constrained to adhere to this unwritten etiquette.  Republican Mitt Romney managed to accept his party's nomination in approximately 4108 words. President Barack Obama took center stage as an incumbent President at his party's convention to accept an uncontested nomination in slightly greater effort of 4371 words.

By now you're probably pondering this statistical barrage, perhaps mildly curious about this even being noticed, and wondering what possible meaning it could have.  Since few of these speeches from either convention were soaring rhetoric and none produced ground breaking new policy, why so much concern over their length. It's the fact that so little was spoke about however, that's the point. Being subjected to hours of null value pontification aroused my curiosity as to how it might compare with other more eloquent and historically significant bits of rhetoric or composition. Here's the short list (literally) that came from the research that I did on the subject:  

• Ronald Reagan's 1987 “Tear Down This Wall” speech … 2672 words.
• The Declaration of Independence … 1458 words.
• John F Kennedy's 1960 “Ask not ...” Inaugural Address … 1364 words.
• George Washington's first Inaugural Address … 463 words.
• And what is often conceded as the finest piece of Presidential rhetoric ever publicly delivered, Abraham Lincoln's “Gettysburg Address” … 246 words.

It seems apparent that with the passage of time and in spite of the advantages of our candidates being more well-educated professional politicians, the assistance of media savvy speech writers to help insure a well written script, and computer aided teleprompters to aid in the actual performance; our politicians seem unable to qualitatively deliver the message regardless of the quantity of their rhetoric.

Perhaps in fact, these technological advances have become a crutch rather than an aid to their efforts.  Speaking only for myself after listening to all of it, I am at pains to point out that it's not the quantity of your rhetoric that moves us, but its quality.  If you truly do understand the problems facing this nation as you would like us to believe, it shouldn't take long-winded grandiloquence to inspire us, but instead grand ideas, simply expressed and easily carried out.  So if we seemed a bit inattentive at the conventions or bored at the campaign stops, by all means do take it to heart.  It isn't quantity we ask of you after all, but quality. 

Politcal Energy Policy

Both the Republican and Democratic National Conventions are over now. (Can I get a Hallelujah from the congregation?)  There were a number of things about them that I will undoubtedly talk about as time goes on, but one that stuck in my mind almost immediately had to do with the concept of Energy.  And not the kind that comes from fossils fuels, nuclear power plants, solar arrays, and wind turbines; though they'll be touched on in a roundabout way.

That after all, is what political conventions are really all about, isn't it?  The primary process in most cases picks the candidates before the conventions begin, and gathering the party faithful is designed to generate a little attention and excitement around those chosen party representatives. While the number of delegates for each state is predetermined by each party (Democrats choose more of their own than Republicans), the methods of choosing those delegates is largely left up to the states.  Without getting too far inside baseball here, I don't think that I'd get much argument by stating that those who make the final cut are those who've shown the most energy in working for the party in general and the candidates nominated in particular. (The Ron Paul campaign, almost managed to change a part of that, but its subversion was itself subverted after all arrived in Tampa.)  

The job of those delegates is to take the energy they possess down to the Convention, exhibit it in what is sometimes seen as an almost religious frenzy, and create even more by doing so.  They're then to bring that energy back to their respective states, share it with others of the faithful who were not permitted to attend, and use it to propel their candidate to final victory in the November elections.  While it's a process that's been used successfully for many years in this country, its very reason for being (Energy), may now be its downfall.

We live in a different world these days after all.  One in which we are all striving to be more conscious of our responsibilities to each other and to the planet we live on, more accepting of the diversity inherent in the human condition, and less concerned with the often competitive nature of everyday existence ....  (Sorry, a bit of an earlier meal attempted to come back on me after writing that last bit.)  One therefore has to wonder about the energy expended in a process that is about little more than a competitive spirit that we seem to have long since foresworn.

Cities compete (rather than simply participate) to host these political conventions.  Political parties compete to have bigger, flashier, and grander events than their counterparts.  Speakers compete for greater numbers of applause pauses, soundbites, and good reviews; while simultaneously competing to see who can generate the most energy in the faithful.  (I've heard that there's a side bet going on as to the volume of natural fertilize being generated, but no one will confess to it.)  If an actual floor fight is involved to get to a nomination, even more in the way of energy is expended in choosing between candidates who must be largely the same anyway in order to have reached this stage of the process.  Parties themselves compete for the bigger polling bump that their candidate can get from the convention process.  All of this energy generated and expended however, is nothing compared to the energy that these events consumed.

While both parties eventually get around to talking about their respective energy production policies in these club meetings, neither seems to get around to talking about the energy consumed by holding them in the first place.  We never hear about the carbon footprint of delegates flying into the host cities (let alone that of the corporate jets used by politicians, corporate sponsors, and lobbyists also attending).  We don't hear about what's consumed in convention halls, hotels, restaurants, and bars as party faithful, parasitic pundits and policy influencers (lobbyists), and power seekers burn the midnight oil and both ends of the candle during these events.  Neither does either party castigate the hundreds of mainstream media outlets, each of whom insists on bringing their own power-sucking cameras, generator requiring control trailers, and ponderous staffs to the event instead of following a more efficient policy of sharing and cooperation that often try to force down our throats where everything else in life is concerned.

No one talks about reducing the carbon dioxide expended (even though the EPA would like to limit it everywhere else) nor the hot air contributing to Global Warming that's generated each day on the convention floor. As each party's party closes in the traditional manner, do they stop to consider that in the thousands non bio-degradable balloons that they drop? Will any stop to ponder the environmental impact on landfills that so many rubber-chicken dinners will have, especially after they're piled on the Mt Everest size mound of discarded Starbucks coffee cups and plastic cocktail stirring sticks.  

Neither does any of this touch on the energy expended in vitriol by each major party for the other.  In spite of being largely and surprisingly in agreement on a wide variety of issues, they choose instead to focus 'negative' energy on those subjects on which they in some minor way disagree.  Using veiled threats, horrible misrepresentations, complete mischaracterizations, and shameful character assassinations they castigate each other in ways that would be considered rude and boorish under any other circumstances; while simultaneously extolling the desire for a future spirit of cooperation and compromise.

I cannot help but conclude therefore that while both may have some form of national energy policy, neither of the two major political parties appears to have a 'Political Energy Policy'.  Either that, or neither has one that's logically consistent with publicly stated goals and behavior of their members.  Not only do they appear to be extravagant and wasteful in the use of energy for their own selfish purposes (One which, by the way, is funded in some part by money earned through the expending of energy on the part of taxpayers.), but they seem hypocritical and deceitful in doing so in what should be considered an indecorous effort and an ill-mannered fashion. One could go further to say that such events are indecorous for promoting a spirit of competition that they are trying to stifle in every other aspect of our lives.  One could go so far as to call them politically incorrect for expending so much of what they constantly tell us are precious energy resources that must be carefully conserved in such partisan political events. 

In the spirit of full disclosure, I am obligated to point out that both parties do deserve some conservation credit for recycling candidates from past elections.

        

Feeling Unconventional

The Republican Convention in Tampa has been over for a few days now and the Democratic Convention is getting ready to begin its first prime time evening as I write this. I watched only a few of the speeches from the ponderous elephantine event last week that I thought would be worthwhile (and one I'll talk about later), so it would be only fitting that I give the jackass pronouncements of this week from Charlotte much the same treatment.  

The marvels of modern technology were in fact created for things like political conventions.  It allows us to use the vast resources of the 24-hour news networks and Internet to surf past the natural fertilizer production, occasional poor writing, and sometimes even worse delivery of some of those trotted onto the national stage for their fifteen minutes; saving ourselves to watch only the Sportscenter version of scoring plays.  Except for the die-hard supporters, monomaniacal detractors, and political camp followers; there is little reason for the rest of us to know or care about in the minute-by-minute goings on at the convention.  After all, the candidates had locked up their respective nominations long before.  It's not like we're going to get a surprise ending.

Oh hell, let's just admit that political parties seem unable to recognize that these events are so boring that Network television thinks that shows about middle-aged women with too much reconstructive surgery and too little sense of shame or caricatures of human beings buying somebody's left over crap out of a storage locker are more likely to garner viewers than the selection process of the national leader. (Sadly, they're right.)  

The organizers of these events have apparently failed to keep up with the tastes of their more technically advanced audience, in spite of their condescension to this 'New America' by showing 'tweets' and talking about blogging (while carefully holding back the elitist gagging).  Where's the Red Carpet?  Where are the vacuous, but pleasant looking interviewers asking the most attractive of the delegates from which designer they got that lovely 'Uncle Sam' stovepipe hat?  And if we have to put up with the 50 state drone of the roll call vote, why can't we have the delegates from each state illustrating what their state is famous for with musical numbers performed by the cast of 'Glee' instead of attempting us to tell us in stentorian tones that they are 'the pickle state'?

And speaking of delegates, did anyone tell the Republicans that they got cheated on the size of their gathering?  Only 2,286 of them got to pick their party's winner (or loser).  The Democrats meanwhile, are going to let 5,556 vote in an election where the incumbent is running unopposed.   Does this mean that Republicans tried to reduce the budget of their convention by comparison or should this be considered a 'draconion cut' in representation?  As for Democrats, does having more than twice as many delegates make them more Democratic, or does it simply mean that their convention will have a bigger carbon footprint?  On balance however, you have to hand it to Democrats for being on point by demonstrating to the nation that letting greater numbers vote is a good thing, and inconsistent by making attendees show a picture ID (something they continue to fight for the November process) before doing so.    

As far as the soaring rhetoric that was and will be delivered in these two weeks, I still think Sam Seaborn and Toby Ziegler wrote better for "The West Wing".  I'm sure however, that those in Charlotte will perform their parts equally as well as their predecessors in Tampa.  Carefully scripted with 'applause pauses' (some of which will be missed) there will be touching stories, fire and brimstone threats, and inspirational moments enough to energize the already faithful to wave their pre-printed signs and chant what are probably well-rehearsed catchphrases (just as the camera cuts away from the speaker on stage to the party faithful).  Test audience reactions will then be carefully weighed by backstage media consultants to decide which ones will be re-used in campaign speeches in the weeks ahead.

And there will be the occasional slip.  Now don't get me wrong here because I have nothing but the greatest respect for Clint Eastwood as a writer, director, actor, and musician.  I likewise believe that the act of going on that stage with a chair as a last minute prop and without a script may have shown more courage than his Dirty Harry character ever showed in film.  I even believe he made a couple of points that needed to be made.  I also believe that Clint Eastwood the director, as a renowned artist behind the camera famous for delivering consummate visual perfection of image and dialogue can only look back at the occasionally rambling performance that he gave and want to yell, "Cut!  OK, let's reset, take it from the top, and shoot another take".   

That too however, is the nature of a political convention.  These are live shows after all, except for the visual images carefully displayed behind the speakers; images to inspire feelings of patriotism, fidelity, and reverence.  Oh yeah, and let's not forget the combination of music, equally carefully chosen so that young voters know that the party is 'hip' (Do they still use that word?); but not so hip that middle-aged and senior voters feel that they've lost touch.

No, the truth of the matter is that political conventions have become little more than poorly directed awards ceremonies.  The political faithful gather in a 'fun town' for a gathering where they can set aside complaints that there's too much money in politics long enough for them to be properly and lavishly entertained.  Each party's delegates can gather together with like-minded people to sympathize with each other about how little the other party's 'stinking, lousy, rat bastards' care about toning down the vitriol and personal attacks in political campaigns; a situation that can only fixed if their candidate kicks the shit of his P.O.S. opponent and their party takes control and shuts up their opposing opinions once and for all.  

Might I dare to suggest that if this is the way the parties are going to conduct their business in the future however, that they might want to seek out proven 'hosts' to keep things up tempo and on track, get the TV ratings back where they belong, and garner more coverage for their respective parties.  For apparently like me, most of the nation appears to be feeling decidedly unconventional.

(I'm thinking Billy Crystal's proven track record would serve the Democrats well, and Dennis Miller could well provide the answer for the Republicans.  If we have to be inspired for 2-3 evenings, the least the parties could do is give us an occasional laugh to blunt the pain.)

Less Is Most Definitely More

There's been a little sniping in the mainstream media as the 112th Congress begins its summer vacation.  Of course it's not really a summer vacation because since the middle of the Bush years, neither house of Congress likes to adjourn because it allows a sitting President to make recess appointments that might otherwise not pass the Senate.  Lately the recess appointments have been made anyway, which would seem to make the idea of staying in session to prevent it from happening rather ludicrous; but then again 'rather ludicrous' is usually a safe descriptor of Congress anyway.  But I digress ......

The apparent complaint with our National Legislative body is that it has accomplished too little in the way of passing laws, and therefore has not done its duty. Derision is cast on the 112th Congress for passing a repeal on Obamacare, something that many of those running for seats promised that they would do if elected.  Of course the fact that they passed such legislation 33 times since taking office might be a bit excessive, but could perhaps be explained as simply a reminder that occasionally political promises are kept .... even when doing so is meaningless.

Speaking of meaningless, ABC tells us that Congress has however proposed 60 bills to rename Post Offices, 38 of which passed Congress and 26 were signed into law.  Of course they failed to pass a law to fix the Post Office's indebtedness or even force it to fix itself.  As a consequence, the National Department Snail Mail defaulted on a previous Congressional mandate to pre-fund $5.5 billion in health benefits.  (I guess the check must have gotten lost in the mail.)  While I tend to agree with the assessment of ABC in the poor handling of the Post Office woes (oops sorry, felt like something was trying to come back up on me after making that statement), personally I find this lack of productivity rather refreshing.

The Washington Post disagrees however, and went even further in castigating those now on holiday by showing rather graphically the lack of legislative productivity from the most recent bunch; an illustration which must make Ohio's Speaker Boehner proud.

Courtesy of the Washington Post

Apparently being a newspaper inside the Beltway (though only just barely in the Springfield, VA facility) means that they are, like Congress itself, incapable of a proper assessment where this subject is concerned.  There are far too many laws and regulations in this country already, passed by the eager minds and overly productive hands of a group of people who always seem to legislate for everyone but themselves.  The mind numbing size of the Federal Register alone (the big book of Federal Regulations) has grown rather remarkably over the years from its humble origins of 2,620 pages during the FDR Administration.  In fact, the feds recently took this tome online as the only way to deal with its forest killing proportions, since it adds some 70,000 to 83,000 pages per year. (And probably a good deal more than that this year.)  

That being the case, perhaps we should be giving a standing ovation to lawmakers for the gridlock, deadlock, and partisanship which has characterized the 112th.  (Yeah, I know.  I find the idea of applauding politicians nauseating too.)   Maybe in their final session before the end of the year (which for some will include some lame duck time), we can get them to walk back some of the nonsense they and their predecessors have done over the years; subtracting rather than adding to the confusion of overlapping and contradictory federal, state, and local laws.

But listen, let's not stop with merely handing out kudos to the junior legislative body.  How about a shout out to those on the senior circuit with a 6 year-term to play with.  Oh sure you can talk about the arcane rules of the Senate, and how they've been manipulated to prevent real action on the floor; but one can't help but recognize a bunch of guys who haven't even managed to pass a budget mandated by law in three years.  That's non-performance on an epic scale.

So while the media seems intent on deriding Congress for less bang for the buck (understandable certainly, since it is filled with Republicans after all), I think that we can all easily recognize the debt of gratitude the we owe to the Senate Majority Leader for sitting in a cave on a rock and eating raw fish while contemplating 'his precious' ring of power, one that he may well lose for bringing his part of the national legislature almost to a standstill.  (Oh come on, admit it.  He does look like Gollem.)  Many may find Sen Reid's recent activities objectionable or even detestable, but for myself, I cannot help but recognize that a lack of new legislation equals a lack of new restriction.  While the Majority Leader may be seen by many as an obstacle to progress, I see him as a shining example of what government can do best for the people ... next to nothing.  (Though I can't help but wonder when he and his fellow Democrats will inherit 'the Party of No' mantle that they so richly deserve.)

My only disappointment in all of this is that in spite of the lack of productivity in the legislature, spending continues to increase.  Even in this apparent record level of impotence, these 435 non-union salaried employees seem to be able to throw more money away that their more productive predecessors.  I only wish it were possible to truly celebrate their lack of legislative potency with a corresponding level of frivolous monetary disbursement.  More spending, more borrowing, and more scrutiny over every aspect of our lives.  Yes it appears that were the federal government is concerned these days, even their less is definitely more.

 

The Lessons of Scott Walker

Having said it likely that I would wait until the weekend to post, here I am again (which I suppose  means that I am as untrustworthy as some of the politicians I write about).   I  simply found that the more I listened to the talking heads on both sides of the political spectrum discuss the Wisconsin vote, the angrier I got.  I am therefore going to weigh while the ink is still drying on the Wisconsin tallies.

One of the few things more amusing than seeing the mainstream media handed their collective butts in an election is watching the Olympic back-pedaling of the losers and the massive overreaching of the winners when the final results of such an election are finally tallied.

After Ohio's Governor Kasich took a drubbing for the failed effort in his state to gain the restrictions of public sector workers, the left was all but convinced that Governor Walker would receive a similar shellacking, especially with the numbers of signatures on the recall petitions.  In spite of the fact that Walker seemed to be consistently ahead in the polls, we were told to expect his demise.  

Well the results are in now and the reports Scott Walker's demise were apparently greatly exaggerated.  He will remain the governor of Wisconsin, by what appears to be a lead of 53% to 46% over Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.  And even as Badgers were going to the polls, the pundits were lining up with excuses and prophecies.

I for one was amazed at the amount of whine produced in Wisconsin, as those on the left quickly pointed out that Barrett, after all, was not the Union supported candidate in the Democratic primary (refusing to acknowledge that the fact that his beating of that union candidate should have been saying something).  Lest Union power and dignity suffer unduly, they were also quick to point out that outside money being spent on the left was being significantly outspent by outside money from the right. (I was curious that no mention was made about the impact of the opposite having happened in Ohio last year).  

Before the dust had settled, we were likewise reminded that Ohio and Wisconsin were different situations, since the Ohio proposal included safety workers and Walker's in Wisconsin didn't.  According to this form of spin we're supposed to believe that voters, who often have trouble distinguishing the candidate's political parties, understood the subtle shading of these arguments seven months later.  I suppose it's equally possible that we should instead believe that safety workers, having no dog in this hunt, simply threw their Union brethren under the bus; but I heard no one mention this potential.

Last but not least, we were told that in spite of the Walker win, Barack Obama was still polling better than Mitt Romney.  (This is known as the, "Oh yeah, your family has a better car, well mine has a better house.  Nyeh!" response; and is usually limited to the playground in kindergarten.)  By the time they were done, all I cold hear was John Belushi crying out to Carrie Fisher in 'The Blues Brothers', "It's not my fault!"

For their part and much like with the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts a few years back, those on the Right were busy announcing the second coming of the Republican Party to the tune of "Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead".  They were equally vocal (and close to being as poor a sport in winning as the left was doing in losing) in predicting that the results of this election was a mere foretelling of Republicans increasing their lead in the House, taking over the majority in the Senate, and ultimately winning the Presidency.  They were not only as excited as a new puppy, I think that in a couple cases they actually peed on the rug.

In all of this, they like their opponents were also wrong (at least in my opinion).  

Scott Walker did not become the first governor to beat a recall election because he was a Republican.  He did so because he's one of the few elected officials out there (along with members of the Wisconsin legislature) to understand what needed to be done and when, in order to balance the budget of the state in his charge.  For this, those who originally voted for him did so again. 

He knew that raising taxes was an unacceptable option, and that cutting spending was the only answer.  He knew that public sector employee health and retirement benefit programs were only going to become worse if nothing was done about them.  He likewise knew that laying off public sector employees and reducing services had to remain a last resort.  In this, he was in some ways like his counterpart in Ohio, and their contemporary Chris Christie in New Jersey.  Regardless of the path taken, all have managed to achieved a balanced budget for States under their care (unlike their ridiculous counterpart in Illinois). Unfortunately, this is not necessarily an example of Republican values when viewed on a grander scale.  

Oh don't get me wrong, Republicans will certainly talk about small government and fiscal responsibility when on the political stump, but talk is usually all you get.  (Remember the budget discussions of last year, and the 'Incredible Shrinking Budget Cuts' that resulted.)  Upon achieving national office, they mostly seem to revert to a kind with their brethren on the left.  Republicans have never had any problem spending, their difference was little more than the rate at which they did it.  We were still spending more than we were taking in when Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House.  We just hadn't loosed the deficit dogs, running up debt like a country that never expected to pay it back except by inflating a portion of it into non-existence.  (Wait, that's exactly what we we're doing ... oh, never mind.)

Social Security and Medicare were both still going broke, and the Republican answer was to add a prescription drug program to make it happen quicker.   Regulatory agency budgets at the EPA, HHS, and the Security agencies were increased annually; and added to as required when the Department of Homeland Security was formed.  As for Defense spending; of course it had to go up.  There were two wars to be fought after all.  Oh sure there was talk about shutting down the NEA, but it never amounted to anything.  There was also talk of streamlining the tax code, and with it the IRS; but nothing ever came of it but empty rhetoric.

If all of this is the case, what then can we learn from Governor Walker maintaining his office?  Perhaps it's simply that even in a state as progressive Wisconsin, sometimes people will overlook political theory and keep someone in office who's getting the job done.  It might be that people are getting tired of the way things have always been, and want real change (not hope and change).   They're sick of what has largely become an over-priced and dysfunctional form of governance and want one that understands its limited power and even more limited finances.  On the other hand, maybe this is just the acorn that the blind squirrel finds once in a while.

As for what this taught (or at least should have taught) the two major political parties, I expect neither learned anything.  They've become too bloated, too power-hungry, and too set in their ways to learn from a simple lesson right in front of their eyes in Wisconsin.  Elections are not necessarily won by greater spending, more effective bullying, or more masterful rhetoric and spin.  Ultimately they are won by those who show up to vote; and increasingly, that group is made up of people who are really pissed at both of you.


So endeth the lesson ....



  

Primary Education

In spite of the fact that the primary process is not over, it appears that it is.  President Obama after all, was running unopposed for the Democratic nomination, proving once again what George Ade said long ago that, "Anybody can win unless there happens to be a second entry".  In spite of a marginal approval rating and less than marginal economy, President Obama will easily receive his party's nomination to run for a second term.

After the initial assumption by Republicans that no one could beat Mitt Romney for his party's nomination, one that was proved false on more than one occasion, he now appears to be the last man standing in process that proved only slightly more entertaining than the Rosie O'Donnell Show (which the Oprah Network recently cancelled). While Romney hasn't got the delegate count required to officially end the process, even his most ardent detractors are all but conceding his victory, and beginning to fall in line in order to present a united front in time for the convention. 

Looking back at what's gone on so far however, the glaring questions in my mind aren't about the candidates (whose real test is yet before them), but about the primary process itself.  

We might start for example with the insistence on the primacy of Iowa and New Hampshire to kick off the process individually, in spite of a complete lack of credible reasoning to continue this archaic process. Other than drawing attention to states which nothing else normally does, there's no logical reason to allow it to go on.  

Immediately following, we can add in the constant shuffling of primary dates by states across the rest of the country hoping to make their own relevant.  In spite of constant threats by national parties of sanctions for doing so, this never-ending 'me first' attitude has done nothing but drag the process out.  (Isn't it amazing that this infighting doesn't make us question whether political parties who cannot seem to control their memberships are capable of accepting the leadership of a nation?)

Isn't it in fact curious that at a time when so many claim that the big problem with politics today is the money involved, they insist on a long primary process that's as much proof of a candidates ability to raise money as it is to raise the enthusiasm of his own parties political base?  Of course, we're told that as the process continues, we learn more about each candidate.  Bullshit!  All that happens over time is the candidates manage to smooth the rough edges off of stump speeches they'll eventually need in the actual election, while likewise learning to tailor them to individual audiences across the country.

Why must this process (like every other in politics) favor incumbent candidates, who either don't have to compete or spend from their war chests or have money left over from previous efforts?  Why can't this process be about the best people expressing the brightest ideas, regardless of when they hit the national stage?  Why can't those ideas be ones that they've long held and which persuaded them to run for office in the first place, instead of ones that they're only now recognizing as they "travel all across this great land of ours, talking to hard-working American people"? 

Why can't we learn from past mistakes and successes in this process?  So let's take this as an educational example of potential improvement.

Why can't we start the process on April 16, the day after the American voter truly learns what the price of democracy is (more on that later)?  It certainly seems a fitting date.  We can begin with three or four debates to give an understanding of each candidate's principles, and start the actual voting process in the middle of May.

We could then run five "Super Tuesdays" of ten states each; two weeks apart (and if Iowa and New Hampshire insist on being in the first group, that's  OK with me).  Interspersed with these primary groupings, four additional debates could be held if requested or required by circumstances.  The entire process would be over in ten weeks, and still allow Parties to hold nominating conventions in plenty of time for the election. 

Such a concentrated process would make many more of these primaries meaningful, coming as close together as they would.  They would also have the intended consequence that the process would no longer be one of who could raise enough money to last out an admittedly overlong process, but whose core principles would stand up best in this concentrated marketplace of ideas.

While were at it, why not eliminate the ones like Missouri's; which while it allows a popular vote, only allows one that has nothing to do with picking delegates or nominating a candidate.  If these states wish to hold primaries, the least that they can do for voters is to keep them from being a meaningless sham.  

Perhaps most importantly, by changing and concentrating the process, we can make the political parties themselves pay for some portion (if not all) of these private beauty contests.  I can find nothing in the Constitution which mandates the need for political parties, and nothing that therefore requires that the taxpayers of the states holding them foot the bill.  

One could (and perhaps even should) therefore demand that if taxpayers must in fact pay for any part of this party process, that all primaries be open ones in which voters are allowed a ballot regardless of prior party affiliation (or lack thereof).  It seems a violation of voting rights and a particularly egregious offense that Republicans and Democrats are capable of billing the American people for their private processes, and then refusing them the right to participate in them.

Listen, Democracy is never perfect; and even the Founding Fathers recognized the dangers of the representative republic they were creating.  Forming political parties in fact, was something that they did reluctantly.  None of what has become the primary process however, is defined or mandated in the language of the document that created this government.  

It's up to us to do what we can therefore, to see that we get the best possible candidates that we can to hand over the limited reins and responsibilities for the highest office in the land (and those of the legislature).  There's a lot about the twisted path that we find ourselves on that will be difficult to straighten out, perhaps cleaning up the primary process however could be seen as a truly 'shovel ready project'.  

Will The Real Conservatives Enter And Sign In Please

A little over a year after I was born, a TV show premiered on CBS called "To Tell The Truth". (Yes, they did have TV that far back, though the screen was small, round, and only showed pictures in black and white.)  The premise of the show was simple, three people would claim to be something that only one of them actually was, and the game involved figuring out which of the three was not an impersonator. 

Each of the contestants not telling the truth about who or what they were schooled enough to be able to answer questions about their false claim.  Some pulled it off pretty well and fooled a panel of pundits put in place specifically to see through them.  Others were pretty obvious as lame set-ups and were quickly unmasked.

Because we are now entering the heart of the Republican Party Primary season, you've probably decided that what I'm talking about are Republican presidential candidates ... but you'd be wrong.  In fact with one exception, there is nothing that any of the Republican candidates for President can tell me at this point that will make me believe that they tell the truth when they say that they're Conservatives.  I'm far more concerned with those who entered Congress two years ago, and those that will soon be running this year for office in both the House and the Senate.  Which of those in office has proved to tell the truth with regards to their Conservative credentials and which newcomers to the process can lay claim to such truth?  Tea Party supported or not, far too many seem to have proven to be little more than a 'storm in a teacup', have fallen far below the standards that they espoused when running, and are a far cry indeed below the ideal that one might have assumed based on the rhetoric of the 2010 election.

Each of House of Congress is firmly in the grip of one of the two major political parties, and both seem incapable (or more likely unwilling) of changing the direction in which the nation is going.  Regardless of party affiliation or supposedly declared principles, we continue to see the national legislature function under the concept of 'business as usual', with little or no impact felt by the introduction of these so-called Conservative elements. 

*  So-called spending 'cuts' still have little to do with the reducing even government's natural increase in spending, and nothing at all to do with an actual reduction of the amount this nation spends from one year to the next. 

*  Entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare continue to go bankrupt, and increasingly appear to have the potential of taking the rest of the country with them.  Instead of attempting to address the situation however, the best that those in power can suggest are 'premium' holidays that only speed up the death spiral process.  (Don't even let me get started on where Obamacare fits into this.)  

*  Government Bureaucracy continues to increase at an alarming rate, with the legislators finding it politically expedient to turn over their Constitutionally Mandated Authority to an ever greater number of agencies and ever larger gang of unelected paper pushers.  After promising before each election to eliminate these bloated, ineffective, and wasteful agencies, they instead add to the total number of bureaucratic drones collecting a government paycheck. 

*  Government regulation likewise continues to increase with the National Register (the big book of federal regulations) in fact growing at a record pace.  Few should be surprised at such growth, as much of this new regulation is generated by the out-of-control bureaucracy that seeks to gather more power unto themselves, with their mandates taking effect without the approval or perhaps even the knowledge of legislators whose province such rules once were.

Though much was made of their entry in 2010, after sufficient cajoling and scolding it appears that the professional politicians have once again brought their young and inexperienced members to heel.  Having carefully explained to them about 'the way things are done' and how to gain 'real power for real change' in Congress, these freshmen now seem content to pass meaningless votes that show some level of intestinal fortitude; knowing that even these lackluster efforts will be compromised the first time that their opponents denigrate them for doing so. Actually shaking up the way things are done in Washington with ground-breaking legislation now seems but a dream. 

Basking now in the pay and privilege afforded by their recent elevation to Congress and showing little understanding of the definitions of 'fair share' or 'compromise' (and especially that of 'personal responsibility'), they continue to follow a path of destruction while rolling up the national deficit at a pace never dreamed of in this nation's past. 

Living by their own special set of rules (like those on Insider Trading) and showing no memory or understanding of the burden that they assumed when seeking elected office, they allow themselves to get 'schooled' (or perhaps more accurately 'punked') by their wiser, more experienced, and perhaps more jaded colleagues.

So perhaps while we are still some ten months from the election, it's time to ask those seeking office if they are the real deal where conservative principles of a small government defined and limited by the Constitution are concerned; or are they something that merely masquerades as a Conservative for the benefits of the cameras and the political game.

Many of us out here find that it's a game we've long since grown tired of. We've discovered that we're no longer entertained by claims about whether you're 'red' or 'blue', or affirmations that you represent the party of elephant or the jackass (we're coming to believe that members of both are jackasses).  We don't care any more what party's banner you carry and which you claim to represent, since in practice there's little difference. What we really care about is whether this time is if you're truly going to represent us, rather than betray both us and the principles that you claimed to hold to the agendas of the two major political parties like so many before you.

So before we all but write you, your re-election efforts, and your little clubs off completely, would the real Conservatives enter and sign in please ....

Paid My Dues

 .
One of the hotbed political issues for Republicans and Conservatives in 2011 (I list these groups separately because all Republicans are not Conservative and many Conservatives are not Republican) is the idea that people shouldn't be forced to join a union in order to participate in certain parts of the economy.  There is likewise a feeling that even such participation should not force one to pay dues to an organization that they either did not and would not join if they had an actual choice in the matter, and that they feel does not represent them in spite of the money that they are forced to contribute.  I could not agree with these sentiments.

How is it then that the greatest offenders on a national scale are many of those same politicians?  Oh, don't get me wrong here, I don't believe that there is a 'politicians union' operating in this country, in spite of the fact that they have much of the same negotiating philosophies with their bosses; and seem perfectly willing to let their job provider (us) go down the tubes as long as they are in a position to collect their healthy compensation & pension packages. There are in fact however, two national organizations that seem to follow many of the same practices as those that (at least on the right) they demonize. 

How else am I to view Democrats and Republicans?  Both of these national organizations, like Unions, normally require proper affiliation before they offer preferred treatment and seek to help you.  Even when membership requirements have been established, they provide only limited assistance when seeking a job (and less than that for Republicans in Lucas County, Ohio).  Both insist on demonstrations of loyalty before power and responsibility are granted within their ranks.  Both seem perfectly content to sacrifice one of their 'brethren' if such sacrifice in turn protects their own position. Both often cause a great deal of damage in the process of exercising their real or imagined power. Neither appears willing to allow secret ballot when voting; and neither appears to be above twisting the truth or using strong arm tactics to see their ends met.

There is a difference however.  Unions at least, only charge their members dues, and do not insist on all of us paying for their internal elections.

How else am I to view the coming 2012 primary season?  While we are told that this is simply the process of picking presidential election contenders, the truth of the matter is that it's no more or less than picking representatives of the two major political parties. As much as members would like us to believe that they are a part of the government, they aren't.  Therefore the picking of their representatives for a political contest is their own responsibility.  Yet over the years, voters in states across the country have become convinced that it is the responsibility of EVERY TAXPAYER to foot the bill for a part of internal party politics.

Argue if you will that the primary process is necessary, such arguments do not make the process of billing the taxpayer for it any less egregious and unfair.  How can it be unfair you say, when all allowed to vote?  Really?  Try voting in a Republican or Democratic primary in many of these contests if you are a registered Libertarian or Independent.  In spite of the fact that all of us are paying for this process, many of us (in what should be considered an obvious case of voter disenfranchisement) will not be allowed to participate, since we haven't joined one of the two big clubs.

Of course we are told that if such restrictions aren't imposed, that members of opposing parties will sabotage elections.  I'm sure that those attempting to enforce 'Jim Crow Laws' had similar defenses used in justification for their deplorable behavior in restricting the right of a citizen to vote in the 19th and 20th centuries.  The possibility of misuse of the right to vote however, has never been seen as legal justification to restrict its exercise.  If the concern for abuse is so great, why not let each voter select a representative from each major political party and let such potential damage (and benefit) be shared equally?  This at the very least, might produce candidates that represent the views of the majority of those exercising the right to vote in such events, rather than the majority of those supporting the political party in question.

Ah, but while such a revision to the process might better serve the people footing the bill, it does not serve the greater goals of the parties themselves.  Apparently Republicans and Democrats do not want the opinions of every citizens (much as they need them in general elections), only those 'loyal to the party'. Well I'm sick of it; and I'm going to keep bringing this up until somebody starts paying some attention to what's going on.  Since it seems that the only way to get attention for an evil in this country (real or perceived) is to complain about it constantly until someone finally does something about it to shut you up, I am going to do so.

After all, it's not as if I haven't earned the right to do so.  If you counted up all of my taxes wasted in the name of Democratic and Republican primaries, you could certainly say that I've paid my dues ...


.

TFP Column: Cowboys and Indians

Another weekend arrives, and this time Christmas is almost upon us. While I thought I would be putting up a link to one effort for the Toledo Free Press, it seems that I will be putting up a link to another instead.  Have no fear however, for the very timely effort that I thought I would be linking to will be found here at Just Blowing Smoke on tomorrow.  (And if you think that you're confused about all of this, you ain't seen nothin'.)

This week in the Toledo Free Press instead, you will be regaled with stories of political parties and Congress, both of whom this year seem to be vying for the lead role in "How the Grinch Stole Christmas".  The title of this holiday effort however is instead "Cowboys and Indians".

Now I will be gone for the weekend because of an annual commitment that cannot and must not be set aside.  There will be things previously prepared and delivered throughout the holiday weekend however (hmmmm .....) for you viewing pleasure here at Just Blowing Smoke.

If you truly wish for some viewing pleasure however, you will set down the Egg Nog and Christmas cookies, and stop rattling presents long enough to pick up a copy of the this weekend's edition of Toledo's largest Sunday circulation and Ohio's Best Weekly newspaper, the Toledo Free Press.

.

Republicans Aren't Perfect

.
Upon reading the title of this piece, there may be some of you out there that are shocked, either by seeing such an admission in Just Blowing Smoke, or that I could even conceive of such a thing, let alone write it.  Others of you who occasionally visit this site (or who have a number of assumptions about it), may only disagree with me in part; believing that they are in fact perfect: perfectly heartless, perfectly soulless, and perhaps even perfectly evil.  Those of you who regularly visit the site however, will have previously noted that I am more than willing to take shots at any political party when the cause and need arise.  Such is in fact the case today.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I must confess that I am not in fact a Republican, but a registered Libertarian.  In my rather long voting history, I can affirm that I started out as a Chicago Democrat (a shameful confession, I admit), and became a Republican for some years before becoming finally and fully enlightened. 

The situation of which I speak of course, is the current debate over the payroll tax deal.  Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those who's about to go all mushy and talk about the spirit of compromise while beating my breast over John Boehner and House Republican's unwillingness to vote on the Senate proposal.  In fact, just the opposite.  I think it's high time that the House threw the whole thing back in the Senate's face.  

How did political discussion in this country reach a point where standing on principle makes you intransigent?  When did having principles that you were willing to fight for make you the lunatic fringe (and you Tea Party members, God love you, know who I'm talking about)?  When did compromise mean that Republicans must give way to the desires of Democrats, but Democrats need not give anything to Republicans in return?  Why is the House the will of the people when controlled by Democrats and an obstructionist and unruly mob when controlled by Republicans?

(As a side note, when did spending 'cuts' become reduction in the increase of such behavior?  When did government begin to accept the concept of 'Wimpy Economics' where tax increases occur immediately, but spending cuts, such as they are, can be deferred to a later date which never actually comes; only to later become forgotten promises by the same politicians who promised fiscal responsibility when looking for votes?) 

How is it that Republicans (who I admit again, aren't perfect) are held as irresponsible for not voting on the Senate Democratic bill, when those Democrats are not in turn held accountable for not voting on a bill previously passed in the House (whether by Republicans or on a bi-partisan basis)?  Why isn't the 'Democratically controlled' Senate being castigated for taking their vote and then ducking out of town, throwing compromise to the wind in the spirit of 'my way of the highway'?  Why isn't the President and media complaining about the Senate one again ducking their budgetary responsibilities (it has after all been over 900 days since they passed a budget) and attempting to kick the can down the road once more?  When did national tax policy become something that required bi-monthly approval?  What can businesses to do in the way of long-term planning (let alone hiring) when so much uncertainty looms, with 2012 being an election year that promises only more of the same, and with the taxation and spending policies of this government being announced as the chosen battlefield?

Don't get me wrong.  I know that these are a lot of uncomfortable questions for many these days; but perhaps it's time someone asked them (the media certainly won't).  The nation is tired of seeing economic policy in this country treated like an empty can of beans (which Congress seems all too full of) being used in a child's game.  It's tired of elected officials shirking the responsibilities that they are paid very well for in the pursuit of keeping the job that they apparently seem incapable of performing.  It's tired of politicians and pundits demonizing business leaders who could be creating jobs in this country, if those in elected office could only provide them with some 'Insider Information' (you know, like businesses give members of Congress) so that they could find a way to cash in on the future and get the economy jump-started.

Wait, I seem to have gotten off track here.  Where was I?  Oh yeah, I started this whole thing by talking about how Republicans aren't perfect ... and they're not.  I have little doubt that under the pressure of the President's bully pulpit and the media's willing cooperation, they will once again cave in on a proposal of their own which did little or nothing, in favor of one proposed by Senate Democrats that does even less.  Displaying the type of fortitude that normally requires a visit to the Invertebrate section of a museum to find, they will fold faster and easier that the paper used for Christmas presents; and the whole pointless disagreement can begin again in time for the next holiday ... Valentine's Day.

Now I don't expect perfection from Republicans (and I expect even less from Democrats under Harry Reid), but I wish that someday they would at least aspire to be more than they are today.  At some point they must learn not to always be the first one to blink in this game of political chicken.  Yes I know that Republicans aren't perfect, but they would be vastly improved by hiring a half decent media consultant / press secretary, getting a spinal transplant, and agreeing to an injection that would help them grow a pair.

.

RHINO's

Recent events in Washington DC have shown yet again that there are Republicans who apparently do not share the principles on which the the Grand Old Party was founded.  Of course it also might be said that the Republican party has itself largely mislaid, mostly forgotten, or completely ignored the fundamental precepts on which it was established.  Certainly anyone taking an objective look at what this party has done at the national level in much of the 20th Century might question whether this is still the party of smaller government and fiscal responsibility. 

This apparent disparity between theory and practice became apparent yet again during the latter days of the Debt Ceiling debate in the House of Representatives; when there seemed to be 'Tea Party' Republicans, 'Mainstream Republicans, and RINO's; each of which had different ideas on how these canons should influence voting. Now for those of you who aren't 'inside baseball' enough to recognize this last term, it stands for 'Republicans In Name Only'. 

There is little doubt based on their records, that there are those in the national legislature who could be called RINO's, claiming GOP membership while often voting more in keeping with the dogma of Democrats; but since I am not a Republican, I see no reason to call out these 'sheep in wolves clothing' or disparage them individually.  Quite frankly the difference between the two parties is becoming so insignificant these days that the accusation is all but meaningless, and the petty problems of Republicans or Democrats are of little interest to me.

What is of great concern to me however is the direction that this country is going, one which many of the current brand of elected officials seem unwilling or incapable of dealing with.  It's not because they are RINO's confused over how party postulates influence their decisions however, but because they are RHINOs.  This may also be a term that you are unfamiliar with (quite possibly because I just made it up); but stands, fittingly enough, for Representatives Having Inadequate Nerve in Office.

(Some of the editorial staff at JBS suggested that 'Nads be used in place of Nerve.  Inconsistent anatomical references to body parts mentioned later in this piece, and an unwillingness to use street slang won out, but only just.  Both references however, appear to be accurate.) 

Now some may find this comparison amusing, since the Rhinoceros is known as a rather stubborn, belligerent, and cantankerous animal; almost incapable of getting along with anything (even other Rhinos).  RHINOs in Congress however, seem to be their polar opposites, being easy-going to the point of being almost placid (kind of like cows with a hard, pointy noses). One might go so far as to say that the only thing that the animal and these politicians share in common is a predilection for short-sightedness.  This apparent 'Hyde-Jekyll' transformation seems to occur to RHINOs somewhere between running for office and accepting it.

Apparently all of the stump speeches made on the campaign trail about mom, apple pie, and (dare I say it?) God become meaningless once election is achieved.  All pronouncements about strongly-held principles seem to weaken once many of these leaders walk up the steps of the Capitol Building.  Indoctrinated in the schools of bi-partisanship and compromise, many of those entering their respective branch of the national legislature get a 'spine-ectomy' performed as part of the House and Senate induction ceremonies.

Witnessing this transformation into the equivalent of jellyfish or flatworms, the only confusion that most of us in 'fly-over country' have these days is this: 
Is the House is worse for watering down every attempt to get the national proclivity for overspending under control through double-dip, double-entry, and double-dealing tricks long found in the 'Big Book of Govt Budgets'; or is it the Senate that's worse for sitting idly by on their well-padded chairs, on their well-padded asses while proposing as a solution to the nation's problems ... absolutely nothing.

This "Thelma & Louise" mentality, where the two major political parties (or the two houses of the legislature) do little more than argue about which one is to blame for the direction they're going or how fast they're driving off the cliff, has made it increasingly difficult to find anything other than 'the lesser of two evils' when going to the polls.  Small wonder, since there is seldom enough difference between the offerings of the two major parties, that so few go to the polls each election.  

Recently elected Tea Party freshmen in both Houses have been a breath of fresh air in these turbulent times however.  Say what you will about them, you must admit whether you agree with them or not that they at least appear willing to stand by their principles (and constituents); even when attacked by those around them for doing so.  They are currently but a vocal minority however, and one cannot help but wonder if they too will eventually be corrupted by a system ripe with the effluvia of pestilence that permeates Washington.

Until Congress realizes that it cannot spend itself out of debt, cannot continue to turn compromise into capitulation, and cannot continue to abandon its responsibilities to an out of control and unelected bureaucracy, we are looking at some dark days ahead.  It's likewise apparent that unless we begin funding the Congressional medical plan for spinal replacement therapy, we will be at the mercy of far too many RHINOs.