Right Sarcasm

Maybe it's time for a man like Newt.

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

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

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

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

He never has.

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

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

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

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

Its time for an asshole for President.

Newt was absolutely correct in one particular observation during the South Carolina CNN debate the other night.  The media and the process has discouraged any decent human being from running for President.

Although Rick Santorum is struggling mighty hard to prove he is the exception to the rule.  He is also running third, and will likely be the next candidate to drop out.  So where does that tact get him?

I take that statement of Newt as an admission too.  He knows what he is, and that isn't the most decent of human beings.

Be that as it may, he's still the most accomplished in D.C.  Romney is accomplished, I'll give him that, but not inside the beltway.

"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals.  He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame . . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else.  But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world . . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure."

    -- Prof. Bernardo de la Paz

I should like Mitt.

With an opening statement like that, you would assume I don't, and you would be correct.  I don't personally dislike the guy, but as to why I don't like him, can certainly be taken personal.  I think he's a little too fake. Contrived.  Acted.

Which is not to say he's a bad guy.

This sentiment may merely be a manifestation of my contrarian streak, which I can argue myself out of, but it may also be the reality of it.  He certainly has some positions today, that he didn't have back in the day.

If I take the New Hampshire approach, I wouldn't look at him beyond his electability, whatever that means, but I'm not living there, I have my own reality to deal with, and I'm not convinced his positions today are the ones we'll get if he should win high office.  That victorious occupation is a slim reality, in my opinion as well.  But I digress.

I should like Mitt.

With an opening statement like that, you would assume I don't, and you would be correct.  I don't personally dislike the guy, but as to why I don't like him, can certainly be taken personal.  I think he's a little too fake. Contrived.  Acted.

Which is not to say he's a bad guy.

This sentiment may merely be a manifestation of my contrarian streak, which I can argue myself out of, but it may also be the reality of it.  He certainly has some positions today, that he didn't have back in the day.

If I take the New Hampshire approach, I wouldn't look at him beyond his electability, whatever that means, but I'm not living there, I have my own reality to deal with, and I'm not convinced his positions today are the ones we'll get if he should win high office.  That victorious occupation is a slim reality, in my opinion as well.  But I digress.

After the first primary, and the second event, with the third immeniently and projected much the same, is it too early to recognize the trend I already wrote about?  The conservatives are out polling the front runner. Too bad this is a race for plurality, not majority, and the majority is losing.  Like they always do.

I got so much to say that I may find this is no longer a hobby.

Do I go with the rant about the nominating process or the reasoning behind the voters choice, reached through exit polling?

I'll build upon the concept of a third party candidacy that I'm not really supporting but espousing.  I've been voting that way for years, I'll try to explain why.  But I'm not actually in that place yet this year, its still early, but they say history repeats itself, and this nomination process reminds of 2008 and every election year before that.

Before you tune out, consider what choice I'm being presented with.  Not certain, yet, but likely indeed.  The momentum makers, the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, and particularly New Hampshire, cited as a top tier reason for voting for Mitt Romney his electability.

What? That's as ephemeral and manipulable a reason as I wound never ever want to see in regards to voting for a presidential candidate.

You think he looks good now?  Able to win, do you?  Just wait, that can suddenly change, as the news makers see fit.

But I'll give them this, being where we are in the process, Iowans and New Hampshirites are at least putting it out there first and early.  Moving forward, anyone with that reasoning is either intellectually daft or demonic.   Either way, I'd like to remove them from the voting lists.

I scornfully predict that this reasoning isn't going away though, and neither is this election process that over values the voices in two tiny states over the other mostly larger, but maybe not brighter, forty eight states.

Keep in mind that this process, these influences, these King makers, will deal from the deck and lay a hand on you and I that we are expected to play loyally in November.

It will happen by and large as they hope.  Some will have a red face, not of a royal flush, but from the anger, for it is preordained that those who don't call on electability, will fold to the manipulation that has proven successful for years, pissing off the electorate.

How do you think Obama got in there?  Rationally and empirically the Bush years weren't as bad as the Democrats were making them out to be, Obama's record is much worse.  Voters are more sedate now however, the loud and frequent gripes from the left aren't needed, yet.

Which brings me back to Romney not even winning the majority of his party, yet.

The conservative voices are not going to win the day, again, and while that part of being a splintered vote is their own damn fault, the fact that I'm not going to have a say at all is what riles me.  My chance to vote is in late April, it will be decided well before then, if not before February.

To think that people who put as much thought in it as the "electability" crowd will somehow inspire millions of clones to do just the same and decide this, and proudly admit as much is beyond my patient sensibilities.

I'm not done yet,  we have a debt that is in the tens of trillions, I hesitate to be specific here because by the time I click publish, the number I cited may rise, and will rise by some not insubstantial amount.  We have a nuclear Iran coming around the corner, and I've been reading the rhetoric for years -- its not good.  We have open borders and high unemployment.  We have as many problems as we do debt, seemingly.

If it weren't for the simple fact that we have a ridiculous election process that is manipulative and disenfranchising I'd have something other than sarcasm for our society.  As it is, how can I not be cynical while I'm expected to vote for the party in November, regardless.  How is it too, that I can not help but be cynical toward any rhetoric that we can fix the nations ills when we can't even get our elections right.

Maybe the conservatives are right in one regard, the fore fathers of ours were inspired, they made an elaborate system that presumably they understood, though I swear to you, I don't.

After the first primary, and the second event, with the third immeniently and projected much the same, is it too early to recognize the trend I already wrote about?  The conservatives are out polling the front runner. Too bad this is a race for plurality, not majority, and the majority is losing.  Like they always do.

I got so much to say that I may find this is no longer a hobby.

Do I go with the rant about the nominating process or the reasoning behind the voters choice, reached through exit polling?

I'll build upon the concept of a third party candidacy that I'm not really supporting but espousing.  I've been voting that way for years, I'll try to explain why.  But I'm not actually in that place yet this year, its still early, but they say history repeats itself, and this nomination process reminds of 2008 and every election year before that.

Before you tune out, consider what choice I'm being presented with.  Not certain, yet, but likely indeed.  The momentum makers, the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, and particularly New Hampshire, cited as a top tier reason for voting for Mitt Romney his electability.

What? That's as ephemeral and manipulable a reason as I wound never ever want to see in regards to voting for a presidential candidate.

You think he looks good now?  Able to win, do you?  Just wait, that can suddenly change, as the news makers see fit.

But I'll give them this, being where we are in the process, Iowans and New Hampshirites are at least putting it out there first and early.  Moving forward, anyone with that reasoning is either intellectually daft or demonic.   Either way, I'd like to remove them from the voting lists.

I scornfully predict that this reasoning isn't going away though, and neither is this election process that over values the voices in two tiny states over the other mostly larger, but maybe not brighter, forty eight states.

Keep in mind that this process, these influences, these King makers, will deal from the deck and lay a hand on you and I that we are expected to play loyally in November.

It will happen by and large as they hope.  Some will have a red face, not of a royal flush, but from the anger, for it is preordained that those who don't call on electability, will fold to the manipulation that has proven successful for years, pissing off the electorate.

How do you think Obama got in there?  Rationally and empirically the Bush years weren't as bad as the Democrats were making them out to be, Obama's record is much worse.  Voters are more sedate now however, the loud and frequent gripes from the left aren't needed, yet.

Which brings me back to Romney not even winning the majority of his party, yet.

The conservative voices are not going to win the day, again, and while that part of being a splintered vote is their own damn fault, the fact that I'm not going to have a say at all is what riles me.  My chance to vote is in late April, it will be decided well before then, if not before February.

To think that people who put as much thought in it as the "electability" crowd will somehow inspire millions of clones to do just the same and decide this, and proudly admit as much is beyond my patient sensibilities.

I'm not done yet,  we have a debt that is in the tens of trillions, I hesitate to be specific here because by the time I click publish, the number I cited may rise, and will rise by some not insubstantial amount.  We have a nuclear Iran coming around the corner, and I've been reading the rhetoric for years -- its not good.  We have open borders and high unemployment.  We have as many problems as we do debt, seemingly.

If it weren't for the simple fact that we have a ridiculous election process that is manipulative and disenfranchising I'd have something other than sarcasm for our society.  As it is, how can I not be cynical while I'm expected to vote for the party in November, regardless.  How is it too, that I can not help but be cynical toward any rhetoric that we can fix the nations ills when we can't even get our elections right.

Maybe the conservatives are right in one regard, the fore fathers of ours were inspired, they made an elaborate system that presumably they understood, though I swear to you, I don't.

When I finished writing about the third party option, I really had more to say.  I want to break new ground on this issue, ferment a little Jeffersonian rebellion.

There is news out today spotlighting the latest ad by Newt Gingrich plowing into Mitt Romney.  Specifically his "timid" approach to the economy, likening his plan to that of the President.

Many think Newt is a progressive, just as bad as the President.  Mitt and his supporters certainly characterized Newt as a scoundrel as vile as the President, successfully enough in Iowa to beat down the numbers that ultimately came in for Gingrich.

In the end, in Iowa, Romney won by the slightest of margins over conservative Rick Santorum.  He won with 25% of the votes, depending on the way you slice it, the conservatives out gained the mainstream candidate by more than two to one.

Do you see what these generalizations mean?

It means that unless the conservatives coalesce around one candidate the end will be destined for a  man that could not convince a majority of his own party, perhaps not even a plurality, to vote for him.

What if this continues through the rest of the 49 states?

The conservative voices will fail to achieve the ultimate prize and again settle for the second billing with a second rate new comer, a la John McCain and Sarah Palin.  I believe the ticket will fail just as well.

We will have the "mainstream" candidate, with 25% of the GOP Primary support, out lasting conservative choices that singularly would do better. When the dust settles GOP pundits and ardents will lay on us why we have to coalesce around the winner for the sake of our future.  This election is just too gosh darn important to allow Mr. Obama to win again!

You think I exagerate the influence the successive defeats of the conservatives in the primary season has on ultimate nominees?  Consider Bush/Quayle begat Dole/Kemp who begat Bush/Cheney who begat McCain/Palin who begat Romney/?.

All well to the left of right, whose Veep was considered more conservative.  Many say the distinctions between the Democrat and Republican are waning.

Well, that is the game isn't it.  Sometimes you win and sometimes it comes in spurts.  You see that in sports all the time.

But consider also the talk that predictably surrounds all recent primary and general elections.  Fraud.  Its become routine for some observer to claim or point out the obvious, that voters in caucuses and primaries aren't exactly party members, much less ardent supporters of anyone.  More like an Occupy tactic of disruption.  Disruption of an nomination process.

Weigh it anyway you want, but obviously the conservatives some how out number mainstream candidates but suffer in the end for it.

The glue that keeps us together, but at some point fails, is the concept that together we share a common enemy, the liberal democrats.  If we stand together we have a better chance of winning the top prize.

Maybe that is part of the problem.   We think of the left as enemy and the occupation of the White House the prize.

Maybe I'm too indifferent, but I don't see the demonization of the administration or the other side in general as very insightful and inclined toward success on election day.  The left did that to Bush but he still won.

The prize is the power to advance the idealogy of smaller government, etc., not just having someone with an "R" next to his name.

What good is it that the predominant thinking of the GOP takes a back seat every four years like an obedient dog standing aside while a better looking or better spoken or more compassionate pedigree takes top spot.

Full disclosure, I don't get a say in the nomination process because there will be a victor by the time my state, Pennsylvania, has its primary.  As is always the case.

Maybe that is why I can't dance too tight with a party.  I'm practically disenfranchised.  Twice.

Conservatives wouldn't be harmed by going third party, history suggest they may need to, to be heard.  Jefferson said a little rebellion is good now and then.  Conservatives may do well to listen to their best advice, heed what the founders warned about.

When I finished writing about the third party option, I really had more to say.  I want to break new ground on this issue, ferment a little Jeffersonian rebellion.

There is news out today spotlighting the latest ad by Newt Gingrich plowing into Mitt Romney.  Specifically his "timid" approach to the economy, likening his plan to that of the President.

Many think Newt is a progressive, just as bad as the President.  Mitt and his supporters certainly characterized Newt as a scoundrel as vile as the President, successfully enough in Iowa to beat down the numbers that ultimately came in for Gingrich.

In the end, in Iowa, Romney won by the slightest of margins over conservative Rick Santorum.  He won with 25% of the votes, depending on the way you slice it, the conservatives out gained the mainstream candidate by more than two to one.

Do you see what these generalizations mean?

It means that unless the conservatives coalesce around one candidate the end will be destined for a  man that could not convince a majority of his own party, perhaps not even a plurality, to vote for him.

What if this continues through the rest of the 49 states?

The conservative voices will fail to achieve the ultimate prize and again settle for the second billing with a second rate new comer, a la John McCain and Sarah Palin.  I believe the ticket will fail just as well.

We will have the "mainstream" candidate, with 25% of the GOP Primary support, out lasting conservative choices that singularly would do better. When the dust settles GOP pundits and ardents will lay on us why we have to coalesce around the winner for the sake of our future.  This election is just too gosh darn important to allow Mr. Obama to win again!

You think I exagerate the influence the successive defeats of the conservatives in the primary season has on ultimate nominees?  Consider Bush/Quayle begat Dole/Kemp who begat Bush/Cheney who begat McCain/Palin who begat Romney/?.

All well to the left of right, whose Veep was considered more conservative.  Many say the distinctions between the Democrat and Republican are waning.

Well, that is the game isn't it.  Sometimes you win and sometimes it comes in spurts.  You see that in sports all the time.

But consider also the talk that predictably surrounds all recent primary and general elections.  Fraud.  Its become routine for some observer to claim or point out the obvious, that voters in caucuses and primaries aren't exactly party members, much less ardent supporters of anyone.  More like an Occupy tactic of disruption.  Disruption of an nomination process.

Weigh it anyway you want, but obviously the conservatives some how out number mainstream candidates but suffer in the end for it.

The glue that keeps us together, but at some point fails, is the concept that together we share a common enemy, the liberal democrats.  If we stand together we have a better chance of winning the top prize.

Maybe that is part of the problem.   We think of the left as enemy and the occupation of the White House the prize.

Maybe I'm too indifferent, but I don't see the demonization of the administration or the other side in general as very insightful and inclined toward success on election day.  The left did that to Bush but he still won.

The prize is the power to advance the idealogy of smaller government, etc., not just having someone with an "R" next to his name.

What good is it that the predominant thinking of the GOP takes a back seat every four years like an obedient dog standing aside while a better looking or better spoken or more compassionate pedigree takes top spot.

Full disclosure, I don't get a say in the nomination process because there will be a victor by the time my state, Pennsylvania, has its primary.  As is always the case.

Maybe that is why I can't dance too tight with a party.  I'm practically disenfranchised.  Twice.

Conservatives wouldn't be harmed by going third party, history suggest they may need to, to be heard.  Jefferson said a little rebellion is good now and then.  Conservatives may do well to listen to their best advice, heed what the founders warned about.

Happy New Year!

"It's getting to the point where I'm no fun anymore.  I am sorry."
 -  Crosby, Stills, & Nash.

Gosh I really like that line, at times it seems like it was written for me to use, and use, and use.  When it comes to some political arguments, I gotta fall back on those words because I'm not entertained by the thoughts I'm hearing and I'm no fun in responding.

What got me riled up late last week was the stoking of that age old American quandary of what are we going to accomplish by voting third party.

There may of been a time, but I doubt it, when I was such a party guy that the idea and action of voting for someone outside the two main parties was ridiculed by me.  I have been Going Rogue  longer than Sarah Palin's  been Sarah Palin and I've yet to be persuaded by any opinion that it is contrary to my best interests.  I believe voting third party is appropriate and I'll use the line "so be it" in response to the thought that its a vote for the incumbent or the Democrat, whichever the worse case may be.  So be it.

I've heard all the reasons,  too numerous to recite, but I welcome any that you may have to challenge me and persuade me to vote as you deem fit.

The talk on the radio, where I was stoked, was regarding rumors swirling around Donald Trump.  If we are to believe them, those who know The Donald say he is seriously considering a run at President as a third party candidate.  Great!  Doesn't mean I'm voting for him, but I love the idea.

And so the natural response by GOP operatives and ardants is that he is only going to take away votes from the Republican candidate, thus enabling if not assuring a victory for Mr. Obama in November.

Its sounds plausible and frankly, likely.  Buts its not my problem.  Well O.K.  it is a problem but I'll be darned if I'm going to put my principles and thoughts, well honed over thirty years, aside to vote for someone I don't believe in so that someone else I equally don't believe in will be denied a victory.

Why should I?  I don't believe that these two parties are that far apart on so many issues, that having one in office over the other is such a stark contrast.  If I did feel that there was such a difference in candidates, I'd be voting for one or the other despite the third party candidate.

If, for example Mitt Romney, can't persuade me to vote for him, a candidacy of Donald Trump is going to persuade me to vote for Mitt Romney either.

I have this crazy idea that when a citizen enters the voting booth, he or she should be selfishly voting for his or her's best interest.

We live in a representative Democracy with yearly elections, weighted every four years with the Presidency on the line.  The system is set up so that on those yearly occasions we all migrate somewhere, pull the level or punch the card or hit the button for the candidate we believe will represent ourselves as well as we could represent ourselves.

Collectively, the will of the people is filtered this way,  the winner lays claim to be representative of his constituency.  Within a representative democracy, it is incumbent upon the office holder to champion his voters positions, but ultimately decide and govern.  Compromise if need be to get things done.

But for this system to work well over time, we need to be selfish in the voting both, otherwise we don't get office holders reflecting our values.  We get office holders reflecting the muddled values of being electable.  

For my part, I'm voting once a year,  only once in four do I get a say at the high office.  I'm not compromising my views in this context.   If I do, that is a conscious decision  meant to indicate my displeasure in some way, perhaps as a protest vote.

If I'm displeased with a candidate from the GOP but yet vote that way its a capitulation on my part of my principles.  The Democrats win either way because its demonstrating to future GOP candidates that THEY, THEMSELVES, can be positioned  nearer to the left and still garner support from the electorate that pretends to be diametrically opposed to the Democrat ideology.  Thus future elections are between two candidates that are closer in views than even today's politicians, and thus providing no real choice in the final place.

And in four years we'll hear the same arguments as to why we need not to vote third party all over again.

I've also said a thousands times, we got two parties in this country, a corrupt party and an inept party.  Relatively speaking of course.  I've come to believe they aren't so different.

Presently, one of the only true distinguishing characteristics of the two parties is the predilection of the conservative block to retain their principles and vote accordingly, even outside the GOP if they are forced to.  When that value changes, we will no longer need to worry about having one corrupt party and one inept party.  There will be no difference.

I actually enjoy being different from the left.  Those critical of voting third party are right in this, the left doesn't splinter.  I'm somewhat proud and smug at the thought that I still retain the liberty to vote freely, in my own best interest.  I think taking up the argument that we got to get behind the GOP candidate no matter who is boring and reflects a loss of liberty.

To buck the establishment is fun, maybe there is some fun left in me after all.

Happy New Year!

"It's getting to the point where I'm no fun anymore.  I am sorry."
 -  Crosby, Stills, & Nash.

Gosh I really like that line, at times it seems like it was written for me to use, and use, and use.  When it comes to some political arguments, I gotta fall back on those words because I'm not entertained by the thoughts I'm hearing and I'm no fun in responding.

What got me riled up late last week was the stoking of that age old American quandary of what are we going to accomplish by voting third party.

There may of been a time, but I doubt it, when I was such a party guy that the idea and action of voting for someone outside the two main parties was ridiculed by me.  I have been Going Rogue  longer than Sarah Palin's  been Sarah Palin and I've yet to be persuaded by any opinion that it is contrary to my best interests.  I believe voting third party is appropriate and I'll use the line "so be it" in response to the thought that its a vote for the incumbent or the Democrat, whichever the worse case may be.  So be it.

I've heard all the reasons,  too numerous to recite, but I welcome any that you may have to challenge me and persuade me to vote as you deem fit.

The talk on the radio, where I was stoked, was regarding rumors swirling around Donald Trump.  If we are to believe them, those who know The Donald say he is seriously considering a run at President as a third party candidate.  Great!  Doesn't mean I'm voting for him, but I love the idea.

And so the natural response by GOP operatives and ardants is that he is only going to take away votes from the Republican candidate, thus enabling if not assuring a victory for Mr. Obama in November.

Its sounds plausible and frankly, likely.  Buts its not my problem.  Well O.K.  it is a problem but I'll be darned if I'm going to put my principles and thoughts, well honed over thirty years, aside to vote for someone I don't believe in so that someone else I equally don't believe in will be denied a victory.

Why should I?  I don't believe that these two parties are that far apart on so many issues, that having one in office over the other is such a stark contrast.  If I did feel that there was such a difference in candidates, I'd be voting for one or the other despite the third party candidate.

If, for example Mitt Romney, can't persuade me to vote for him, a candidacy of Donald Trump is going to persuade me to vote for Mitt Romney either.

I have this crazy idea that when a citizen enters the voting booth, he or she should be selfishly voting for his or her's best interest.

We live in a representative Democracy with yearly elections, weighted every four years with the Presidency on the line.  The system is set up so that on those yearly occasions we all migrate somewhere, pull the level or punch the card or hit the button for the candidate we believe will represent ourselves as well as we could represent ourselves.

Collectively, the will of the people is filtered this way,  the winner lays claim to be representative of his constituency.  Within a representative democracy, it is incumbent upon the office holder to champion his voters positions, but ultimately decide and govern.  Compromise if need be to get things done.

But for this system to work well over time, we need to be selfish in the voting both, otherwise we don't get office holders reflecting our values.  We get office holders reflecting the muddled values of being electable.  

For my part, I'm voting once a year,  only once in four do I get a say at the high office.  I'm not compromising my views in this context.   If I do, that is a conscious decision  meant to indicate my displeasure in some way, perhaps as a protest vote.

If I'm displeased with a candidate from the GOP but yet vote that way its a capitulation on my part of my principles.  The Democrats win either way because its demonstrating to future GOP candidates that THEY, THEMSELVES, can be positioned  nearer to the left and still garner support from the electorate that pretends to be diametrically opposed to the Democrat ideology.  Thus future elections are between two candidates that are closer in views than even today's politicians, and thus providing no real choice in the final place.

And in four years we'll hear the same arguments as to why we need not to vote third party all over again.

I've also said a thousands times, we got two parties in this country, a corrupt party and an inept party.  Relatively speaking of course.  I've come to believe they aren't so different.

Presently, one of the only true distinguishing characteristics of the two parties is the predilection of the conservative block to retain their principles and vote accordingly, even outside the GOP if they are forced to.  When that value changes, we will no longer need to worry about having one corrupt party and one inept party.  There will be no difference.

I actually enjoy being different from the left.  Those critical of voting third party are right in this, the left doesn't splinter.  I'm somewhat proud and smug at the thought that I still retain the liberty to vote freely, in my own best interest.  I think taking up the argument that we got to get behind the GOP candidate no matter who is boring and reflects a loss of liberty.

To buck the establishment is fun, maybe there is some fun left in me after all.

I began this piece by looking up the alleged Eleventh Commandment,  the one about not speaking ill of fellow Republicans.

I read this on Salon.com.   Which by now should sound familiar to all those observing current events.

Its been a couple of days now since the latest compromise by House Leader John Boehner.  I got the word while running a couple errands, a radio host on one of the conservative national shows was breaking the news, running with the press conference, and then proceeding to denigrate the actions of the Speaker for reaching an agreement with the President on the pay roll tax cut extension.

The thoughts on radio programs, on TV, and in print would be so poignant and profound if those weren't the thoughts we hear each and every time from the word smiths when compromise was reached with this president.  As facts would have it, its been going on a lot longer than during this President's term. Since I can remember the titular leaders of the GOP have been pillaged and beaten by the national press over matters of politics far more often than the Democrats.

Two points aside.  One, I'm not espousing no scrutiny from the national press, I'm just now echoing the thought that there is a bias.  Scrutiny is well, bias needs to be weighed.

Two, rhetorically.  For the biased on the right, why doesn't the Eleventh Commandment apply to you?
Obviously the left has an Eleventh Commandment too.  Never spoken however, more devoutly lived.

Oh, to be sure, and I never used those three words more seriously, to be sure,  there is a leadership deficit in America.  I just don't see it as a deficiency in John Boehner when he compromises on any of these issues.  I see it as a deficiency in John Boehner when he can't grasp the correct tact to use so that when he does compromise its accepted as not a capitulation, but as a reasoned response to unreasonable leadership.

John Boehner's position wasn't a two month extension, it was a year extension.  What's more reasonable?  One year, two months, or nothing at all?  I'm going to allow for the opinion that nothing at all would be more certain for the markets than two months, but most Americans would likely take two months of tax cuts over none.  One year would be the most reasonable.  Obviously?  I guess not, 'cause someone in the White House thinks two months is ideal, and he got an awful lot of support for this idea.  He's also gets less scrutiny on this short term solution.

We do have bias in the media, as a result, truly, I only see what they let me see.  I don't have time or patience to listen to and watch C-SPAN to catch all the words and actions Mr. Boehner threw at this.  Did he say the words that I would want to hear and it just so happens the press didn't convey those words to me when I went looking?  I don't know.

That's part of the problem then too for Mr. Boehner.  While acknowledging he does have leadership weaknesses, and who hasn't, I reckon he has argued well enough for me at times, because he has argued well enough for me at times, that his one year plan is more reasonable than Obama's two month plan.  That problem is the press general isn't giving him the air time and gravitas as the President gets.  Part of that problem is contributed by his own right leaning air wave mavens.

For all the rhetoric that is heard about how stark the contrast is between the right choice and the left choice, when issues get decided, far to often the right pundits sound so much like the left in bashing the GOP leadership, that I've begun to tune them out all together, they aren't helping.

I'm not against scrutiny of Mr. Boehner, yet if we are going to engage in political battle by choosing sides and making careers out of it, as some have don't quite well with,  lets artfully, politely too, lay leadership failures at the feet of those who truly deserve it.

A President who promised so much and spends so much, as to be expected, on his programs and politics is the real amateur in this deal.  A two month extension is the leadership and dramatic change he professes to personify?  Is this where the smart money went in 2008?  I'd laugh if it wasn't so unprofound and less poignant.

I got an email the other day, it was short and provocative, it was from a life long, unabashed, unapologetic Democrat.

" Just so you know the Iraq war ends today, the leaders from Iraq didn't attend the cerrmony??? Gee I wonder why?? We did such a good job???"

So I asked back, why? I wonder why too.

"Just like I told you many times before, I never saw an Iraqi on tv saying how glad they were to have us there??? Only you and George were glad???"

Here is a link to a letter from the Iraqi President in 2006.

How did we get here from there?

You have to look no further than the White House. Mr. Obama's White house.

Michele Bachmann said it best, he had victory on a silver platter and screwed it up.

Yet, I don't think Obama was unintentionally degrading the relationship between our two countries. He knew exactly what he was doing, and he knew it would never be questioned by his voting blocks.

The war in Iraq, despite bipartisan origins, became a place where Democrats would never allow a specter of glorious success linger too long. The "failed war plan" mantra began just days into operations, their hand was shown early and they never folded.
Democrats and their cohorts were quite successful in framing the situation, at least to their kindred souls in the Unions, AARP, and Green jeans, as a fruitless mission, destined for failure, and sure to be unappreciated.

And that is exactly what they have today.

Why would no Iraqi leaders be at the ceremonies? Maybe that is just how it was destined to be with a Democrat in the White House.

What should be questioned is how this President squandered a bond like we had, if only for a glorious moment in time, for political purposes, at the cost of so much of our national treasure, both human and monetary.

For years the left complained about the waste of our treasures, well its assured now isn't it?  All that vigilance during Bush's term went to naught as soon as one of their own were given the keys to the office.

Thanks for what?  Being malcontent and subversive for eight years and then oddly quiet thereafter?  Why?

That answer lies in a perplexing disposition that places party above country, rationality subservient to propaganda.