Every so often, one of my readers who has apparently dipped once too often into the cooking sherry wonders why I don’t run for Congress. The short answer is that I don’t want to ever again wear a necktie. I also don’t wish to spend my life going hat-in-hand begging for campaign contributions. Worse yet, what if I actually won the election and then had to listen to Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank mouth off endlessly? Between her nursery school delivery and his lisping, I’m sure I’d soon be popping Excedrin like peanuts.

Instead, I prefer staying home and telling everybody in Washington how to do their jobs better. So, for openers, I would make it a law that every bill would contain only a single item. No more piling on. No more legislation that contains, say, funding for the military with tax dollars for ACORN or an unnecessary bridge or airport named after some partisan hack. As things stand now, every appropriations bill comes loaded with a ton of political pork. When called on it, the weasels in both parties get to say, “Well, I had to support the troops, didn’t I?”

Conservatives who automatically deny that the Arizona immigration law is racially-based are lying. Of course it is, in just the same way that a border wall would be. How can it not be when the millions of people who have snuck into the U.S. are all Hispanics? It makes as much sense to deny that the war on terrorism is directed at Islamics. The problem is that those who favor open borders accuse the rest of us of being racists. That’s the big lie they love to promote. Americans, after all, have no trouble living and working with Hispanics who are here legally.

If the illegals pouring in were Swedes, Germans or Poles, our opposition, which is based on principles and the law, would be the same. The difference is that the very same hypocrites who favor open borders today are the ones who would change their tune overnight if the aliens weren’t Hispanic. The ugly, but unvarnished, truth is that they’re the racists.

Of course the number one racist in America is the fellow who spent 20 years soaking up Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s vicious attacks on white Americans. It’s probably not a coincidence that Barack Obama is also the biggest liar who’s ever sat in the Oval Office. In fact, if his nose grew like Pinocchio’s every time he told a fib, they probably would have had to leave Joy Behar and Sherri Shepherd in the wings in order to make room for the presidential shnoz on “The View.”

The latest proof that in looking for a role model, Obama snubbed George Washington and patterned himself, instead, on a used car salesman was his announcement that he was “surprised, disappointed and angry” when Scotland released Lockerbie bomber Abdel al-Magrahi. It seems that Richard LeBaron, Obama’s deputy head of the U.S. embassy in London let Scotland know a week ahead of the event that the U.S. preferred that Magrahi receive compassionate release than that he be locked up in a Libyan prison for what was supposed to be the final few weeks of his life. The only surprise is that apparently the change in climate did wonders for his health, and Magrahi is now expected to live at least another ten years!

The U.S. government had tried to keep LeBaron’s letter secret on the alleged grounds that it would prevent “frank and open communications with other governments.” I don’t know about you, but to me that sounds like a married man begging his mistress not to spill the beans, lest it prevent future frank and open communications with his wife!

According to Bedford Fall’s George Bailey, every time a bell rang, an angel got his wings. If it worked the same way with lies, an entire division of angels would owe a debt of eternal gratitude to the prevaricator-in-chief.

Permalink | Comment on this post

The media wanted to sit on this amazing scientific find until after the election, but photos leaked out, here is a magnified view of the virus.

Scientists are calling the petri dish the "Culture of Corruption"

This post appeared originally at The Looking Spoon (www.thelookingspoon.com), a conservative humor/satire/art/commentary blog.

Permalink | Comment on this post

Below is a short excerpt from the best analysis of Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally that I've come across so far. Please read the whole thing (link below).

"The Glenn Beck rally is confusing people.

Why?

He is aiming far beyond what most people consider to be the goalposts.

Using Boyd’s continuum for war: Material, Intellectual, Moral.

Analogously for political change: Elections, Institutions, Culture.

Beck sees correctly that the Conservative movement had only limited success because it was good at level 1, for a while, weak on level 2, and barely touched level 3. Talk Radio and the Tea Party are level 3 phenomena, popular outbreaks, which are blowing back into politics.

Someone who asks what the rally has to do with the 2010 election is missing the point."

Link: http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/15295.html

Permalink | Comment on this post

Nearly 100 years ago – 94 to be exact – on August 31, 1916, a young American found himself facing his last day on earth, in a place far removed from his California home, in a war he did not have to fight.

Born in San Francisco in 1892, Harry Butters enjoyed a childhood of comfort and luxury. When his father died in 1908, young Harry inherited the former’s fortune. A bright boy, Harry undoubtedly faced a promising future. Yet, something greater than the glitter of fortune guided this young American. And when World War I broke out in 1914, Butters chose to adopt as his own a cause he didn’t have to and join the British army.

In 1915, he received a commission in the British army and began fighting a war far from home – both in distance and in consciousness. Not until 1917 would the United States follow Butters into the war. But by then, young Harry had breathed his last. He was killed at age 24 on August 31, 1916, while fighting in the Battle of the Somme – becoming one of the first if not the first American casualty of World War I.

What was it that compelled this young man to reject the complacency that says, “That’s not my battle,” and take up arms for a country not his own? Simply put, Harry Butters recognized that although the war was not yet his country’s, the fight was, indeed, his.

Below is part of a letter Harry wrote home in late 1915. He knew then that his life might be short, but he also knew that some things are more valuable than life. And he was willing to sacrifice the lesser for the greater. In his words, we read a sentiment written by one man yet lived out by countless patriots over the years – both in life and in death. And it’s a sentiment we need more of today.

Listen, as Harry Butters explains…

I find myself a soldier among millions of others in the great allied armies fighting for all I believe right and civilized and humane against a power which is evil and which threatens the existence of all the rights we prize and the freedom we enjoy, although some of you in California as yet fail to realize it. It may seem to you that for me this is all quite uncalled for, that it can only mean either the supreme sacrifice for nothing or at best some of the best years of my life wasted, but I tell you that not only am I willing to give my life to this enterprise (for that is comparatively easy except when I think of you), but that I firmly believe if I live through it to spend a useful lifetime with you, that never will I have the opportunity to gain so much honorable advancement for my own soul, or to do so much for the cause of the world’s progress, as I have here daily, defending the liberty that mankind has so far gained for himself against the attack of an enemy who would deprive us of it and set the world back some centuries if he could have his way.

I think less of myself than I did, less of the heights of personal success I aspired to climb, and more of the service that each of us must render in payment for the right to live and by virtue of which only we can progress.

Yes, my dearest folks, we are indeed doing the world’s work over here, and I am in it to the finish…. “For God, for Liberty, for Honor” the call that so many have answered….

May we with the same fervency continue to answer that call today.

For further reading:

Harry Butters, R.F.A., An American Citizen; Life and War Letters

This Day in History: American soldier Harry Butters killed in the Battle of the Somme

Permalink | Comment on this post

Permalink | Comment on this post

The Definition of Insanity is to repeat the same behavior over and over again, yet expect different results.  And in yet another illustration of the left’s apparently insane behavior, our liberal elites are frantically urging us to accept the “Victory Mosque” proposed adjacent to the World Trade Center site.  This is but the latest attempt to pander to so-called “moderate Muslims.”  Now I don’t doubt that there are moderate Muslims, in fact I’m quite sure there is no shortage of them, although they do seem to be very quiet and difficult to find.  But by definition, they are not the ones who attacked us on 9-11, they are not the ones strapping-on suicide belts and blowing-up markets and discotheques, and they are not the ones chanting “Death to Israel, death to America!” on CNN.  That being the case, why is it we should pander to the “moderates?”

Pandering in general has a deplorable record of failure historically-speaking.  I know the left likes to think they have something of a monopoly on subtlety and nuance, but I really do understand the point.  The idea is to avoid conflict by getting your adversary to like you.  If they see how reasonable and cooperative you are, they won’t want to attack you.  The reality however is you simply wind up making it easier for them to achieve their goals.  Just look at the track record.

The poster-boy for modern historical pandering has to be Neville Chamberlain.  While demagoguing the likes of Winston Churchill at home as war-mongers, Chamberlain desperately bargained-away Czechoslovakia and other realms in a doomed effort to appease Adolf Hitler.  We all know how that one turned out.  After Lenin seized power in 1917 and launched the bloodiest civil war known in history, many of the Mensheviks, Social Revolutionaries, Social Democrats, Decembrists, and others from the pantheon of Russian Socialist parties joined with the Bolsheviks in subduing the Russian people, hoping their loyal service would be rewarded.  While their service was happily accepted at the time, once the Bolsheviks were firmly in power, they were all systematically liquidated over the coming years, giving us the term “useful idiots” which we have come to know today.  Closer to home, we need only look to “moderate Republicans” and their willingness to pander to their Democrat-opposites in the House and Senate.  When was the last time you ever saw a Democrat compromise on a significant issue, citing the spirit of comity and cooperation initiated by their Republican colleagues?  Keep thinking, I’ll wait.

Speaking of Lenin, it was he in fact who showed us exactly why the attempt to pander to “moderate Muslims” today is completely futile.  The Bolsheviks regarded any willingness to compromise with the existing order to be accommodationist, and a betrayal of the revolution.  In typical ideological fashion, things were going to be done entirely Lenin’s way, or not at all, and everyone who was not on-board with that was an enemy.  Fundamentalist, radical Muslims today have the exact same view, with a “convert-or-die” attitude toward the rest of the world, including fellow-Muslims who don’t share their ideological zeal. In the same way the Bolsheviks were willing to kill any of the off-brand socialists in Russia without pause, radical Muslims have repeatedly shown their willingness to kill their less-than ideologically-pure brethren when it's too inconvenient to avoid doing so.

Lest there be any question, I have no problem building a Mosque.  I just don’t think putting one right next to the World Trade Center site is a good idea, and only the openly dishonest will deny that a large section of the Muslim world will indeed view it as a “Victory Mosque” as I described it above.  As history has shown, believing such gestures will generate even the tiniest bit of good-will is naïve and foolish.  Without notable exception, those who seek to pander-to and appease their adversaries wind up defeated.  Or dead.

Permalink | Comment on this post

Do we now have the guts to use it as there is no longer any need for whites and conservatives to fear the race card?

The Glenn-Beckoned, conservative multi-racial throngs honoring God, Country, and the Constitution in Washington, D.C. this past weekend, now own Martin Luther King Jr.'s Dream.

Conservatives and Republicans have lived the dream in public and private for decades from the GOP's birth as the party of slavery abolition; passage of two Civil Rights Acts combating Jim Crow before President Lyndon Johnson; and voting in greater percentages than Democrats for the 1964-5 Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, respectively.

Yet, despite that history, it has been the Democrats and their Media branch that have wielded the racial and bigotry moral cards against Republicans for over 40 years, even as they victimized blacks and the poor with their proven failed economic, welfare, and foreign policies

As David Horowitz points out in the "How to Beat Democrats" (also a separate book by that name) chapter in his 2003 Left Illusions, the World's Oldest Political Party has long understood that:

"...the key to American politics is the romance of the underdog ...[as] the cause of the underdog wins American hearts because it resonates with our deepest religious and moral convictions..."

Horowitz goes on to explain how every Democratic Party policy is presented as a program to help victims. When de jure segregation was being torn down, there were many identifiable authentic victims of actual racism and racist laws. But after legal racism was abolished in the late 1960s, the increasing paucity of actual such victims caused the Left to invent "institutional" racism that made every black person in the Lower Forty-Eight a victim based on the presumed racism of all Caucasians.

Meanwhile, as most whites and blacks increasingly got along in the actual America as they enjoyed Oprah, Michael Jordan and Colin Powell; the Democratic Party treated us to an ongoing vision of bridges in Selma with tolerance and amens for the sermons of Jesses, Als, Jeremiah Wrights and even Louis Farrakhan.

Southern whites rightly had to purge or reform their kooks. The Democratic Party and the Media protected radical whites like Bill Ayers and all the black kooks on the left, even as they branded Clarence Thomas and Condoleeza Rice as "Uncle Toms."

Whites indulged this fiction in fits and starts, especially after the Reagan Revolution fixed the economy for 25 years. Then came the recession, a Bush-McCain-damaged GOP brand, and a hear-no-evil indulgence in Hope, Change and the final purging of White Guilt.

The race cards have were purged from the Left's political deck of effective cards as Obama has acted out Reverend Wright's sermons he supposedly never heard.

Who are the underdogs now?

Now we have moral high ground of King's Dream.

So, what will we do with it?

I hope we do what the Dreaming Preacher did and wield it as a moral club to shame those liberals and Democrats, black and white, and all that have betrayed content of character evaluations according to America's creed in favor of Jim Crow 3.0 race-based laws and judgments.

Much of the housing bubble can be traced to federal government-forced lending to people that couldn't dream of paying the mortgages, with much of the prodding done under threat of being charged with racial discrimination; and even the new Fannie-Freddie guidelines have racial quotas.

Republicans and conservatives have long been reluctant to wield the moral card against their opponents, even as it has been wielded against us 24/7/365 for 45 years. The GOP has too often discussed issues such as welfare and economic policy as management issues rather than the moral issues they are.

Our Founders considered themselves as victims of a distant King and Parliament that were denying them their rights to earn a living.

So, who are the victims today?

Well, nearly half a million people don't seek out sweltering D.C. heat for the joy of the heat. No, majorities of We the People now understand that they are being victimized by failed liberal policies that are hitting their pocketbooks and liberty hard, even while being accused of being racists, bigots and homophobes for daring to preserve marriage, Ground Zero and the border.

One of the more vile characteristics of the Left is that they accuse conservatives of being bad people rather than making reasoned arguments against our policies or for their own. We routinely accept the "goodness" of the intentions of the Left and argue against the wisdom of their policies based on actual results.

I do not want the GOP to mimic the vile demonization characteristic of the Left.

But I do think that we must seize the moral underdog narrative on behalf of the victims of ObamaDems' policies.

We must point out the immorality of false racism allegations at home; insulting apologies for America on the foreign soil of true tyrants that ignore the sins of aliens that justifiably bring on American wrath; economic policies that demonize job producers at the expense of rewarding political allies in unions, banks and state and local governments; and of policies that rub 911 in our face with "OJ" trials for KSM and a mosque for him to pray in during court breaks.

Captain Ahab Liberals search for the Moby Dick KKK Whale

The Drive-By Media and Democrats have breathlessly reported the overwhelming numbers of Caucasians, especially including notorious white conservatives Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, at this weekend's "Restoring Honor" rally at the Linc0ln Memorial, on the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a Dream" speech, as if it were a blight on the Christian preacher's legacy.

Lewsi Grizzard used to write often of the obsession of Yankees with imagining most Southerners having Grand and minor Wizard eye-hole-punched sheets hanging in their closets. Instead, no such sheets were found among the hundreds of thousands with Beck. Rather, they found whites shedding tears of racial-harmony joy while living Martin's Dream.

Would the Left prefer that significant portions of the 75% majority white population eschew celebrations ofhonor, faith, hope and charity? "Rev Al" claimed it was an "insult" to King for Glenn Beck's rally to be held on the anniversary of the March on Washington. Really?

Let's see: King honored "America's Creed" (Constitution); was an ordained minister and gave a speech. We wonder, when was the last time Al Sharpton and CNN "reporters" read these lines:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

The character content message anathema to a Democratic Party obsessed with the identity politics of race and sex.

The Pathology IV

Finally, the kooks and pathologies (I, II and III) regarding same in the black community are coming home to roost so that maybe they can finally be purged, thus paving the way for blacks to escape the Democratic Party plantation.

Americans who held their hands over their ears while wanting to like Obama more than McCain, now hear echoes of Wright and Farrakhan in denunciations Cambridge cops protecting the property of a black man and apologies for imams that won;t denounce Hamas.

When welfare changed

Mike DeVine

"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Charlotte Observer, The Minority Report and Examiner.com archives

www.devinelawvista.com

Permalink | Comment on this post

And we're going to rebuild, and we're going to be stronger than we were before ... I want the people of New York to be an example to the rest of the country, and the rest of the world, that terrorism can't stop us. Rudy Giuliani, 2001

Why has the Ground Zero mosque caused so much emotional opposition? Is everything a flashpoint today? Do we automatically face-off across every scrimmage line, grunting obscenities at the opposition?

Let’s imagine a different reality. Suppose that on September 11, 2006, second-term mayor Michael Bloomberg cut the ribbon on a newly rebuilt World Trade Center. In his speech, he glossed over the fact that it took longer to resurrect the center than it took us to win WW II. Everybody was in a celebratory mood, and no one wanted to spoil the event by reminding people that political bickering had delayed construction for nearly a year. No, this was a proud day. This architecturally graceful complex was a grand testament to American can-do spirit. It showed that we refused to allow terrorists to defeat or demoralize us. This new World Trade Center was more than spanking-new office buildings. The focal point was a tasteful memorial to the victims and heroes of that unforgettable day. A small white Greek Orthodox Church sat close by the exit footpath so visitors could stop and pray for the victims and their families.

Let’s further suppose that four years later, in the summer of 2010, a devout Imam proposed a $100 million mosque on the edge of a now vibrant World Trade Center. Suppose further that this Imam condemns violence, and terrorist organizations like Hamas. The planned 15 story mosque would dedicate two co-ed floors for all faiths, and the center would team with New York University on comparative religion classes, both onsite and at the university. To further act as a bridge between Islam and the rest of the community, the center would plan multi-religious social, cultural, and educational events throughout the year. Oh, and one more thing, the source of the $100 million funding was open and above-board.

Does anyone doubt that in this alternative reality, the mosque would be supported by the community, the 9-11 families, and the nation?

But this is not our reality.

On 9-11, the United States of America was brutally attacked. Innocent Americans, including women and children, were taken hostage, and then physically hurled at Americans icons. The enemy had simultaneously attacked lower Manhattan to cause financial havoc, the Pentagon to cripple the nation’s defense nerve center, and the Capitol to destroy our seat of government. Only the last attack was thwarted by brave regular folks who answered the call to heroic duty.

It was soon discovered that militant Muslims were behind these attacks. Over the course of nearly three decades, there had been a series of escalating attacks, but this one was so humongous, that it couldn’t be brushed aside as a mere crime. On 9-11, we finally acknowledged that militant Muslims had declared war on the United States. In the immediate aftermath, we were a cohesive, committed nation. But it didn’t last long. Despite continued, but relatively feeble attacks, we lapsed into lethargy and infighting.

Now the elite think that if they pander to presumed moderate Muslim voices, it will appease the militant Muslims. They are dangerously wrong. Militant Muslims may be few, but those few will be inspired by this trophy mosque to ratchet up the next attack.

The whole thing doesn’t make sense to regular folks. They’re asking how this mosque gained such massive support from the powers-that-be, and why the elite so viciously attack those who raised objections. If half of this political power had been put behind rebuilding the World Trade Center, we would be living the alternate reality—and that was the reality we wanted and deserved as a nation.

Our leaders failed us. Their incompetence and egoism is beyond the pale. They won’t listen to the people, and they won’t consider changing course. It’s disheartening … and enraging. There is only one solution. On November 2^nd, we need to hand pink slips to as many of these hopeless marionettes as possible.

James D. Best is the author of Tempest at Dawn, a novel about the 1787 Constitutional Convention. http://www.jamesdbest.com/

Permalink | Comment on this post

I know, "How could I?" I'm still asking myself the same thing. You go through life thinking something is bad, but you really don't grasp the concept fully until you experience it on a personal level. Public school is a perfect example. I spent the first couple of years in school sitting in the hall because I talked too much. My teachers couldn't figure out that I was bored. Once I learned to sit still and wait for the rest of the class to finish their work, things got a little better. By third grade, I was doing extra book reports to occupy myself and things got even better... at least until Trig and Analytical Geometry when I got a teacher who didn't feel like teaching anymore and told us to figure it out on our own.

Before I had my son, I heard a teacher say once, " I don't care what my students learn, I just need them to pass the tests". I vowed to never send a child of mine to public school. Then we had our son, we enrolled him in Montessori and everything was going fine... until the economy tanked, I had to go back to work, and I couldn't find a job. This summer, we made the difficult decision to send our son to public school. Never mind that it wouldn't be an issue if we weren't paying for a public school system through confiscatory taxes, that we had never used - or cared to. No use crying over spilt milk. So I signed up to volunteer and joined the PTA hoping it would be okay if I got involved.

That delusion lasted three days, until my son came home complaining that they don't teach at this school. It turns out, the kids aren't allowed to talk except during recess. So, when he asked for clarification on his worksheets, my son was told to "Just sit down and fill them out". He complained to me that the work was stupid and boring. I thought maybe it was just an issue of learning a new way of working. When his work came home the first Friday, I saw what he meant. The work he was being given in his first grade class was preschool level. I had taken a child who was learning to do fractions and multiplication and put him in a class where he was being asked to do simple addition and to 'circle the fourth dolphin in the group'. No wonder he was upset.

So, long story short, I sent the teacher an email asking how I could help. I wondered if it would be possible to send him home school materials to supplement the class work when he was finished and waiting for the next worksheet. ( I know you're asking why I didn't home school. It's because he's an only child and I want him to interact with other children. Plus, having to go back to work makes it nearly impossible.) I was informed that he was unable to do the work. I'll be the first to admit that my son is stubborn and didn't want to do the preschool work because it was 'boring'. However, the teacher's assesment was simply that he was unable to do the work. A student in her class couldn't possibly be bored.

Why, do you ask, am I being so hard on her? The answer is simple. She lacked any observational skills, which ought to be a prerequisite for teaching. And, you're going to love this, every piece of correspondence she sent me contained a spelling or grammatical error. I guess she couldn't even be bothered to use the spell check on her email program.

The problems with public school are many and simple to assess. The main issue is the lesson plan. The problem isn't with the plan itself, so much as the necessity to adhere to it rigidly in order to ensure equality of outcome. There is no room for children to excel in one subject and simultaneously receive help where they need it. They are all expected to do the same work, in the same way, at the same rate. Moving up a grade is frowned upon. The concept of the individual is frowned upon. Supplies are now considered communal property and are turned in to the teacher for distribution to the class as a whole during assignments only. This is done under the pretense of helping the teacher eliminate distractions and ensure that everyone has supplies. My son, however, made sure I knew that they were not allowing him to be responsible for himself. A child is perfectly capable of keeping track of a pencil, a glue stick and a pair of scissors. The real message here is that you should look to the government for the things you need so we can all be equal.

Needless to say, I finally found a job, I am volunteering at the Montessoru school in exchange for tuition reduction and my son is back where he belongs. The difference between public and private schools is simple. Private school teachers actually care about the students and what they are learning. There are exceptions on both sides, to be sure. However, we all know public education is less about education than it is about moulding good citizens.

Things you should read in case you think I am not being objective:

The NEA's Latest Shenanigans

Race Based Punishment in Public Schools

H.L. Mencken on Public Schools

Education in the United States

John Dewey's Philosophy on Education

More on John Dewey

This article will also be posted on MachinePolitick

Permalink | Comment on this post

First, the ever-brilliant VDH from Friday:

The Sources of American Anger

Barack Obama, the great healer, is proving to be the most divisive president since Richard Nixon.

Behind the anger over the Arizona immigration mess, the Ground Zero mosque, the economy, and the new directions in foreign policy are some recurring general themes that reverberate in each particular new controversy. In sum, they explain everything from the tea parties to the wholly negative perception of Congress to the slide in presidential popularity.

1. Two sets of rules. The public senses there are two standards in America — one for elite overseers, quite another for the supposedly not-to-be-trusted public. The anger over this hypocrisy surfaces over matters from the trivial to the profound. Sometimes the pique arises because the spread-the-wealth, we-all-have-skin-in-shared-sacrifice presidential sermons don’t apply to those who do the preaching, as in the president’s serial polo-shirted golf excursions or Michelle’s movable feast from Marbella to Martha’s Vineyard.

More profoundly, an Al Gore, a Timothy Geithner, a John Kerry, a John Edwards, a Charles Rangel — the luminaries who call for bigger government, higher taxes, and more green coercion — now appear to the public as . . . read on

And then Charles Krauthammer from back in February:

It turned out that the country's problems were not problems of structure but of leadership. Reagan and Clinton had it. Carter didn't. Under a president with extensive executive experience, good political skills and an ideological compass in tune with the public, the country was indeed governable.

It's 2010, and the first-year agenda of a popular and promising young president has gone down in flames. Barack Obama's two signature initiatives -- cap-and-trade and health-care reform -- lie in ruins.

Desperate to explain away this scandalous state of affairs, liberal apologists haul out the old reliable from the Carter years: "America the Ungovernable." So declared Newsweek. "Is America Ungovernable?" coyly asked the New Republic. Guess the answer.

The rage at the machine has produced the usual litany of systemic explanations. Special interests are too powerful. The Senate filibuster stymies social progress. A burdensome constitutional order prevents innovation. If only we could be more like China, pines Tom Friedman, waxing poetic about the efficiency of the Chinese authoritarian model, while America flails about under its "two parties . . . with their duel-to-the-death paralysis." The better thinkers, bewildered and furious that their president has not gotten his way, have developed a sudden disdain for our inherently incremental constitutional system.

Yet, what's new about any of these supposedly ruinous structural impediments? Special interests blocking policy changes? They have been around since the beginning of the republic -- and since the beginning of the republic, strong presidents, like the two Roosevelts, have rallied the citizenry and overcome them.

And then, of course, there's the filibuster, the newest liberal bete noire. "Don't blame Mr. Obama," writes Paul Krugman of the president's failures. "Blame our political culture instead. . . . And blame the filibuster, under which 41 senators can make the country ungovernable."

Ungovernable, once again. Of course, just yesterday the same Paul Krugman was warning about "extremists" trying "to eliminate the filibuster" when Democrats used it systematically . . . read the whole thing

Is it any wonder that Gallup is showing that the GOP has taken an "Unprecedented 10-Point Lead on Generic Ballot"?

Permalink | Comment on this post

next 10 results