Sunday, January 31, 2010


It's amazing how well the wisdom of our Founding Fathers has held up over the years. I was just reading some quotes by Thomas Jefferson. It is no coincidence that the Tea Party Movement harkens back to revolutionary days. Thomas Jefferson's words are just as relevant today as they were when he was standing up against the tyranny of government.

Here are few.....

Regarding the free market, fiscal restraint, and tax policies,
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."
Regarding the silent majority getting off of their couches and into the streets to protest and make their voices and concerns heard,
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
Regarding the reckless effort to jam through health care reform asap,
"Delay is preferable to error."
In regards to our cherished freedoms giving way to increased government,
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations perverted it into tyranny."
In regards to the "every day" American having more sense than the educated elite,
"He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors."
In regards to allowing for differences of opinion, but also humbling oneself to listen and relent to reason,
"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
And finally, in regards to learning from the failed systems of governing, such as socialism and communism,
"History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is."
His words were true then, and they're true now. Our Constitution drafted by our Founding Fathers has endured for 211 years. It's time again for the people to pull the reigns on the government that is drifting toward strangling our freedoms and treating us as subjects to be taken care of, rather than a free people to serve.

Saturday, January 30, 2010


Just when you thought you'd seen it all.....


PRIORITY-SETTING: Justice Dept.: Obama administration may take action on BCS. “The Obama administration is considering several steps that would review the legality of the controversial Bowl Championship Series, the Justice Department said in a letter Friday to a senator who had asked for an antitrust review.”

Reader John Lucas writes:
Here are two (related) questions some reporter should ask Robert Gibbs at the next press briefing: “Is there any aspect of our lives that the President will say is off-limits to federal regulation? Is there anything that he will unequivocally promise not to try to control?”

If they try to control how much sugar I drink in sodas and how college football is played, I can’t think of anything they would not try to control.

And, Orrin Hatch is equally to blame. His role lends credence to the idea that the “old guard” Republicans are equally unprincipled.

Posted at 2:17 pm by Glenn Reynolds


My comments in this post stem from thoughts stirred in me by reading an article linked by instatpundit.

For the first time, I've now seen a real threat to Obama in the 2012 Primary. It's Senator Jim Webb. He seems to have sensed the pulse of the temperament in the nation right now, and sounds willing to lead from the center, instead of a the radical left. Senator Webb said in a pre-State of the Union remark that:
The overriding objective of the President and the Congress over the next year must be to offer the kind of leadership that regains the confidence of the American people in our system, in our deliberative process, and above all in our leaders. With that in mind, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle should work ever harder to approach the issues that face us with less partisan maneuvering and a more genuine commitment to resolving the truly daunting challenges that now face working Americans.
That is the type of language people want to hear right now. Frankly, it's the type of language that got Obama elected in the first place. People of most stripes are very tired of the demonizing of the opposite party and unwillingness to give credit to either party for a good idea. For instance, I sensed that the democrats wanted to actually lose in Iraq, just to prove they were right and make Bush look bad. Another quote that will resonate with the Tea Party types is:
"To the American voters, I would offer this small piece of advice: Be just as shrewd and ruthless in your demands on our leaders as the political wizards who are running these campaigns are in their strategies designed to get your vote," Webb wrote in his 2008 book, "A Time to Fight: Reclaiming a Fair and Just America."
The fact that he wrote these words before the Tea Party movement really got its legs makes his words believable as his true sentiment rather than a tailored message aimed to target popularity among the rising Tea Partiers.

Lately, I'm becoming more aware that even the democrats are split into 2 idealogies right now. There are the leftist progressives and the left-of-center democrats. You find similar splits in the GOP, but with public opinion shifting to a place right of Obama's radical agenda, a center democrat could really make an interesting race in 2012, first for the primary and then the presidency. If he won the primary, and upon scrutiny of his words we find that they match up with his votes in the next potentially very contentious year (even among the democrats), I think he could be a very attractive candidate in 2012, pulling support from both disenchanted Dems, Independents, and Tea Party supporters. I would go as far as to say that if a democratic primary were to happen tomorrow, Webb would beat Obama.

Even I would take a close look just because balance of power among the branches of government is often the best way to really address concerns in a way that doesn't divide the country. Everyone seems to think that the Tea Party movement will either end up being a party unto itself or hook itself up to the Republican party in an election. A slightly left of center democrat for president and a Republican majority in Congress could be the most healing and appealing thing for the country right now.

The Tea Party stands for a common sense approach to solving our problems. If my impression of Webb gleaned from the article sited above holds up over the next few years, he might just fit the bill. I will at least look at him more closely.

Friday, January 29, 2010


I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but SEIU and others are creating a movement/organization called "The Tea Party Is Over." Even their website looks sinister. A Tea Party website would be red, white, and blue. This one is black and brown and has a look of wanting to break things apart.

I got the heads-up on this from a link on Instapundit which shows who the donors are to the effort to destroy the Tea Party movement from making a difference in legislation.

I guess they're feeling a bit threatened.....

Wednesday, January 27, 2010


Tonight is President Obama's first State of the Union Address. He comes to it not at all in the position he imagined a year ago. He can't claim that his ambitious agenda has born any fruit. His first declaration that Gitmo would be closed in a year didn't happen and the health care bill, which was supposed to be signed in August is in shambles. He did not handle the 3:00 a.m. phone call very well. His promise of transparency and bipartisanship is a joke.

Below is a copy of the talking point for tonight's address. I'm copying the whole thing, but will put my comments in [bold]

Anyway, here it is:
Rescue, Rebuild and Restore

· President Obama took office a year ago amid an array of challenges unparalleled in our lifetime.

o Our economy was in freefall - gripped by the deepest downturn since the Great Depression and teetering on the edge of an even greater collapse.

o Job losses of more than 700,000-a-month compounded an ongoing assault on the Middle Class: a decade of stagnant wages, the impact of plummeting home values and the ever-rising costs of health insurance and educating their kids.

o A $1.3 trillion budget deficit, two wars and badly frayed global alliances also greeted the President at the door. [We knew he wouldn't be able to resist that one.]

· Faced with daunting challenges, Obama took strong and politically-difficult steps to rescue the country from a potential Second Great Depression; to rebuild the economy for the long-term, so businesses are thriving, the Middle Class is growing and all our families are more secure; and to restore America's leadership in the world, as we wrestle with the global challenges of the 21st Century. [well, I suppose he took steps, but I wouldn't say he achieved his goal.]

Economic Issues

· Within one month of his inaugural, President Obama had shepherded the most far-reaching economic recovery plan in American history. It has brought our economy back from the brink of a second Great Depression and, one year later, we are beginning to see signs of progress. [I sure hope we'd be seeing some signs of recovery. The sad thing, however, is that even the White House economists forecasted that doing nothing would have brought us further along into a recovery by now. And, from my own POV, I see things getting worse and not better as people not only continue to lose jobs, but also remain unemployed for so long]

o Job losses, while still too high have fallen to a tenth of where they were a year ago and the economy is growing for the first time in two years. ["a tenth of where they were a year ago"? I guess that means we're only losing 70,000 jobs a month instead of 700,000. I suppose that is a positive direction, but the one-tenth line sounds like they can trick us into thinking things are better than they are. He can't trick us, though, because one in 10 people are still unemployed. It may be that less people are being added monthly to the ranks of the unemployed than a year ago, but the travesty is that many of those people are still unemployed. Their savings and house is gone. For many, if they have a job, they are either underemployed or working part time]

· The President also began the work to rebuild the economy for the long-term by laying a New Foundation for growth and prosperity - a prosperity that is focused on working families, small business owners and the economic competitiveness of our nation. [I noticed the "New Foundation" is capitalized. Is this like the "New Deal" or something?]

Domestic Agenda

· Under President Obama's leadership, we have begun to confront challenges that Washington has ignored for decades and enact reforms meant to strengthen families, small businesses, and American economic competitiveness that lobbyists and special interests have worked to prevent time and again. [ I like the "meant to" line, because his "reforms" did not do what they were theoretically meant to do.]

o We are closer than ever on real health reform, we're moving toward a clean energy economy, we've taken on the big banks and special interests to reform outdated and lax financial rules, and we've initiated far-reaching education reforms to demand excellence in K-12 and make college more accessible and affordable. [Those just seem like bad things to bring up that way. Close isn't close enough for those who expected it to happen months ago. And, for those who feel that it was a close call that it only came close to passing just want to hear him say that they'll start over. The whole "clean energy economy" harkens to the lack of progress in Copenhagen for those who want to see Climate Change addressed, and to the bogus global warming scandal and other ways they're getting their hands all over the auto industry and cap and trade taxes for those who don't.]

· President Obama has also signed historic legislation - from extending unemployment benefits to expanding health insurance for children to ensuring that women receive equal pay for equal work - that, for decades to come, will improve and strengthen the lives of everyday Americans and working families throughout the country.

· On issues large and small, the President has worked to rebuild the economy on a New Foundation so that middle class families, and those who aspire to the middle class, can enjoy the prosperity and economic well-being enjoyed by the special interests, the very wealthy and the well-connected. [Okay, this one reveals the heart of his convictions. (Hence the larger print for emphasis) There's that "New Foundation" again. It reminds me of his promise to "transform this country." Also, in this statement, you see his belief in a socialist state where the wealth is shared. So much of the angst out there (me included) is that the progressives are indeed aspiring to a "New Foundation." They want to erase the foundation of our Founding Fathers and the principals that made this country great. This country's foundation was strong - the Rock of Faith in God, the belief in the individual's rights and the promotion free enterprise. They don't want any of that.]

· He's matched this leadership and advocacy for the American people by standing up to those very special interests and by beginning to change the way business is done in Washington by making government more accountable, accessible and transparent to all Americans.
[okay, if he wants any credibility whatsoever, don't bring that one up!!!! There is no one left outside his own administration that believes that government is "more accountable, accessible, and transparent to all Americans."]

o For the first time ever, every visitor to the White House - what they're doing and who they're meeting with - will be made public
[Does that say, "will be made" public? I thought they were already supposed to be. At least there is an admission there that it hasn't entirely been that way.]

o And we've limited the influence of lobbyists in government by preventing executive branch employees from receiving gifts from lobbyists, by prohibiting administration officials from lobbying the government for two years after they leave public service, and by removing lobbyists from government boards and commissions.

Global Relationships

· As he's worked to rescue the economy and rebuild it on a new foundation that will promote growth and prosperity for all Americans, President Obama has begun the hard work required to restore America's standing and leadership in the world.

o He's enhanced American safety and security by beginning the responsible drawdown of American combat troops in Iraq. Working with our allies, he's refocused the fight against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan while bolstering our relationship with Pakistan.

o He's also engaged our partners throughout the world to combat extremism, begun to rebuild frayed alliances, and reasserted American leadership on issues like climate and energy, financial recovery, public health and hunger [I'm sure he's talked about it. I haven't seen any positive results that have come from his "engagement."]

· After one momentous year in office, President Obama has governed as he said he would, making tough decisions instead of deferring them, thinking about the long-term well-being of the country and not just his own, short-term politics. [well being? He may think so, but to me he's thinking about the long-term weakening and transforming of our country into something we don't recognize as America.]

· On a whole range of issues, President Obama has remained faithful to the central commitments of his campaign and he has begun to deliver changes that the American people expect and deserve. [I guess I did expect some of the things he's done, but I don't feel I deserve them. And for those who's he is really addressing, I don't think they'd agree that he has "remained faithful to the central commitments of his campaign". Talk to the gay right activists, the Gitmo haters, the war haters, the public option wanters, the bipartisan hopefuls......]

This seems to me a pretty comprehensive compendium of Obama administration stretchers and prevarications, but it is probably a reliable preview of what the president has in store tonight.


This article reveals some stats that are pretty amazing.
The headline is:

3 in 10 Californians identify with the Tea Party; a third still don't believe Obama's birth certificate

Will California pull an upset like in Massachusetts?


I read the following article and just crinkled my face with a "I can't believe what I just read" type of feeling. I'm copying the entire article, but I'll put the parts that really may me say, "huh?" in bold italics.
Newly inaugurated Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell will deliver the Republican response to President Obama's State of the Union address on Wednesday.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader John Boehner announced the selection Thursday, with Boehner saying McDonnell was the choice because of his solutions-oriented approach to putting Virginians back to work.

"As the American people continue to ask, 'where are the jobs,' Gov. McDonnell has offered common-sense economic policies in stark contrast to Washington Democrats' job-killing agenda," Boehner said in a written statement. "We don't need a government takeover of health care or a 'cap-and-trade' national energy tax -- we need a common-sense plan to help middle-class families and small businesses and allow them to keep more of what they earn so they can save, invest and hire."

The choice to deliver the GOP response is typically reserved for rising stars who are offered the precarious platform that allows them to show their chops or break their momentum. The individual chosen to follow the president's address doesn't benefit from a live audience of lawmakers, Supreme Court justices and Cabinet officials nor does he enjoy the grandeur of the Capitol dome as a backdrop.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal was panned for his Republican address after Obama's first joint session to Congress following his inauguration last year.

McDonnell was inaugurated as the 71st governor of Virginia last Saturday. He is one of three Republicans to win statewide election since President Obama came to office, defeating Creigh Deeds in the November gubernatorial election.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Massachusetts Sen.-elect Scott Brown are the other recent victors.

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he was anticipating the response since McDonnell's gubernatorial campaign last year resembled the president's.

"A lot of themes look similar to what the president ran on. We certainly look forward to what he has to say, Gibbs said."
I just don't get it. Do they live in an alternate universe? And, if Gibbs believes "a lot of themes look similar to what the president ran on," then my only conclusion is that they knew full well that they did not plan to deliver on any of the campaign promises, i.e., Gibbs is admitting that they ran on a platform completely opposite that of what they're now pursuing. It also demonstrates that Gibbs thinks that, even after a year, the country is in no better or different place than it was when Obama took office.

All I can do is shake my head. I guess the less cynical and half full way to look at it is that all Americans want the same thing; they are just diametrically opposed as to the path to get there. While I think that might be true for the moderate democrats, i don't buy that for the leftist radical progressives. Again, the lessons of history are there. The blueprint to success and recovery is there. The blueprint for disaster is there, too. If Obama's IQ is as high as they say, then why won't he heed the lessons of history?


Clearly, in a time of high deficits and a desire to at least modestly reduce it, difficult decisions have to be made by the White House and Congress as to what programs and/or entitlements have to be ditched or significantly reduced.

As is often the case, I'm frustrated with their priorities. In a time when unemployment is high, the focus should not only only be on creating jobs for people without a college education to fix and build infrastructure or saving government jobs. In order to keep our country competitive in the world and get high school students to pursue math and science majors, there has to also be lucrative and stimulating jobs for them when they graduate, i.e., the type of jobs that allow for research that advances our quality of life, health, and competitiveness in the world. These jobs are often supported by government grants and funds. I was reading an article today that Obama plans to reduce spending for NASA.
But Obama's budget freeze is likely to hamstring NASA in coming years as the spending clampdown will eventually shackle the agency and its ambitions. And this year's funding request to develop both commercial rockets and a new NASA spaceship will be less than what was recommended by a White House panel of experts last year.
There are tough choices to be made, but grants for big research are as important as jobs for infrastructure and so forth, because much research will not be done without the funds that only the federal government can provide. If those dollars aren't there, many high paying, and highly skilled jobs will be lost along with the innovation and progress in medicine, space exploration, and other areas of research and discovery gained by such jobs (and don't forget that it's those high paying jobs that are paying the taxes in the first place). There will be more thoughts on what I think can and cannot be cut from our bloated federal budget in other posts.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010


After writing the lengthy post yesterday about euthanasia, I was faced with another disturbing example of the same nature.
At a town hall meeting Thursday, Bauer, who is running for governor in his own right now that Sanford is term-limited, said: "My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed! You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that."

Martin Amis' comment that got me going on this subject yesterday, the tape of Charles Bernard Shaw promoting the death of unproductive citizens, and then President Obama's comments about the eldery and infirmed who cost the health care so much to keep alive seem tame after reading Bauer's careless and heartless statement. Thankfully, the article is just as much about how the other politicians were morally outraged by the comment.
Democrats and others railed at him."I am disgusted by these comments. They show an unbelievable lack of compassion toward the unemployed workers in our state who are hurting during these hard times," said state Sen. Vincent Sheheen, a Democrat who is also running for governor. "His comments were immoral and out of line."South Carolina schools Superintendent Jim Rex, another Democratic candidate for governor, called Bauer's comments "reprehensible" and said he should apologize.
The author of the article describes Bauer as,
"a fiercely ambitious Republican with a reputation for reckless and immature behavior."
Reckless and immature, yes, but things like that don't come out of your mouth unless you think them, internally. One of the most suprising things I read was toward the end of the article where it was written,
Similarly, Winthrop University political scientist Scott Huffmon said Bauer's words "came out as condescending and insulting," but his overall message about government dependency and personal responsibility will appeal to his evangelical Republican base.
I sure HOPE this political scientist is wrong about that. It would be hypocrisy of the worst kind if he's right. Disposing of anyone, regardless of their productivity or health or whatever, is a rejection of the inherent dignity of life, which is at the very core of their ardent opposition to abortion.


I don't always take the time to listen to the videos that show up on instapundit.....but this one caught my eye and it's DEFINITELY worth the time (not very long - maybe a minute or so) to watch it.


Hope and change is on the rise!

Monday, January 25, 2010


Regarding the the renomination of Bernanke, which is on the front burner and not something to be taken for granted, I read an article with the following excerpt.
The WH and Senate leaders have expressed confidence they will have the votes they need.. .
It's so typical of WH and Senate leaders "to express confidence that they will have the votes they need." Again, sayin' so isn't makin' it so. I heard these very words in relation to both health care and the MA election.


It is pretty amazing the way Glen Beck has been able to be one step ahead of the headlines. He does seem to know what's coming. He's not a prophet - he just knows his history.

In his documentary on Friday, a big portion of it was spent talking about devastation of eugenics among communist countries in the early 20th century. He had a clip of George Bernard Shaw talking about it as a good thing.
"I do not want to punish anybody, but there are an extraordinary number of people whom I want to kill. I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board just as he might come before the income tax commissioners, and say ever 5 years or every 7 years...Just put them there and say, Sir, or madam, will you be kind enough to justify your existence. If you're not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then clearly we cannot use the big organization of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive because your life does not benefit us and it can't be of very much use to yourself."
and at another time, he said,
"I appeal to the chemists to discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly: in short, a gentlemanly gas-deadly by all means-but humane not cruel."
Now today, here is an article about another well known and current author, Martin Amis, declaring that there should be euthanasia "booths" where people could die with a "martini and medal".
"They'll be a population of demented very old people, like an invasion of terrible immigrants, stinking out the restaurants and cafes and shops," he said. "I can imagine a sort of civil war between the old and the young in 10 or 15 years' time. There should be a booth on every corner where you could get a martini and a medal,"

Euthanasia is a difficult subject with similar moral implications as abortion, i.e., the intrinsic value of life.

We have all seen or heard of an elderly or very sick person who wants to escape the pain and suffering of a terminal disease by bringing death on prematurely, as to find peace instead of pain. It would be the ultimate sleeping pill. When, it's better to sleep than to wake up, one can imagine the dilemma. And the dilemma isn't harder for anyone except for the family member witnessing the decline and request of their loved one to escape this life.

We have also seen or heard of people who are so far gone, as to not seem to have any connection to reality anymore. As a family member in charge of their treatment, many have had to make the agonizing decision as to whether to continue life supporting intervention or to let nature take its course - perhaps even with a drug that would make the suffering accompanied with starving or such less painful for their loved one.

Right or wrong, these forms of euthanasia, while morally confusing, are driven by compassion. In Martin Amis' idea of euthanasia, we see an action not born of compassion, but rather of simple practicality. I would suggest that George Bernard Shaw's (and eventually Hitler and other dictators of the 20th century) idea of euthanasia was driven, not even from practicality, but by pure evil.

We saw a similar sentiment driven by practicality from Obama, himself, from a piece of an interview mentioned in a previous blog (ALARMING):
"So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right? I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here."
Reminiscent of George Bernard Shaw's statement that
"to make everybody come before a properly appointed board"
Obama continued in that interview saying that
"And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance"
Like him or not, Glen Beck has been onto something. His style is to make an argument for the current state of affairs based on actual footage or recorded radio quotes of our leaders and those close to and having influence over them saying things similar to or sympathetic to those of the worst types of dictators. The White House has blasted Beck as a right wing crazy person, but has never actually denounced his conclusions. They'll say he's using scare tactics, but won't relieve those fears by defending their quotes as meaning something other than they say. And, if they do try, the attempt is feeble and unconvincing, versus the original statement made unashamedly and with conviction.

Glen Beck sees us, if unchecked, as heading toward a "progressive" country that ultimately leads to communism. In all of his ranting, however, he always offers the hope of our democracy and the every day man/woman stepping up (while we still have our rights to free speech and press) to stop the progressives from getting their way and turning our beloved America into something we don't recognize. Scott Brown's election is evidence that this is happening. He uses the lessons from history to make his points. We are not destined to fall into communism; we just have to being paying attention.

When I read comments on certain blogs, I am always astonished and baffled by some people's misunderstandings of what radical liberalism and the progressive moment is, as well as what the Tea Party movement is not. I think that Glen Beck's next series is going to focus on teaching his audience history. You have to study to really learn all of history, because school text books and the media often don't give the whole picture, and sadly the choices of what to record and/or leave out are often politically driven, presented in a politically correct way. History is not politically correct. It is full of horrors that we can't forget and must learn from.

Related: Here is another view of Obama's presidency and the blast to the past policies that didn't work the first time.
SILICON GRAFFITI: Barack to the Future!

Sunday, January 24, 2010


I didn't think I'd end up writing a post today. Nothing really popped out. But, then I saw White House Advisers Give Three Different Numbers on ‘Saved or Created’ Jobs at

It's jaw dropping to believe how sloppy they could be. They have NO REAL IDEA of how anything really is. All they know how to do is spin. This administration is notorious for thinking that saying something is true is the same as having something be true. They really think they can tell us what to believe and think. Thank God for the blogosphere that is holding up the light to the lies.

Here are the comments:
Axelrod, on CNN’s State of the Union: “But understand that, in this recession that began at the beginning of 2007, we've lost 7 million jobs. Now, the Recovery Act the president passed has created more than — or saved more than 2 million jobs. But against 7 million, you know, that — that is — it is cold comfort to those who still are looking.”

Jarrett, on NBC’s Meet the Press: “The Recovery Act saved thousands and thousands of jobs. There are schoolteachers and firemen and— and— teachers all across our country, policemen, who have jobs today because of that recovery act. We're investing in infrastructure. We're investing in public education so that our kids can compete going forth into the next— generation.”

Gibbs, on “Fox News Sunday”: “Well, Chris, let's take for instance the example you just used of the stimulus package. We had four quarters of economic regression in terms of growth, right? Just last quarter, we finally saw the first positive economic job growth in more than a year. Largely as a result of the recovery plan that's put money back into our economy, that saved or created 1.5 million jobs.”


Call it "death panels" or "end of life counseling", the words of the president regarding health care at the end of life are alarming. In this blog, there are pieces of an interview with Obama regarding end of life health care. I'll copy it here. I think the president's words speak for themselves.
April 29 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said his grandmother’s hip-replacement surgery during the final weeks of her life made him wonder whether expensive procedures for the terminally ill reflect a “sustainable model” for health care.

Also, here is a portion of an interview with David Leonhardt of the Times:
THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.

DAVID LEONHARDT: So how do you — how do we deal with it?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.

Some of you (Dad) may have watched the Glen Beck special documentary on Friday. It is about some of the dictators of the 20th century: Stalin, Che, Hitler, and Mao.

Eugenics was a key piece of their way of governing. It seems so primitive and unthinkable, but here we are, interpreted from the words of our president, that some people's lives aren't worth living. When your quality of life goes down and you're costing the system too much, it's time to go. You're not worth it.

Who is an "ethicist" anyways? God's law is written on our hearts. If our leaders have to go to an ethicist to see if it's morally okay to withhold care to the old and weak, our society has problems far greater than the threats of war and misfortune. Who hires the ethicist? It seems to me the only "ethicist" worthy of consultation is God himself. In His Word, we see that Jesus was a champion of the old, weak, sick, and disabled. He didn't dispose of them; he loved them and saved them.

Saturday, January 23, 2010


After reading this article in the NY Times called, "Mob Rule", I was struck by one of the comments posted after it.

The article referenced above tried to make sense of the shift of "the mob" rooting for Obama to "the mob" choosing Scott Brown, a republican.

Here is the comment. I think it's noteworthy because it's written by someone in Seol, Korea, so this is an outsider's view of what's going on in American Politics.
Obama was elected on his own slogan of "change you can believe in." He got a substantial majority (by American standards) and a mandate to do just that. He didn't use that energy, and made myriad ill-advised decisions and choices. It is of course absurd that those who choose him for the changes he proffered would now shift to a Republican right-winger, but so it is, it was the alternative available. If Obama does not rapidly commence enacting the changes he promised, he'll have a very unhappy 3/4s of a presidency on his hands.


Both in economic and foreign policy, the tide seems to be turning a bit, in so far as the vocal dissatisfaction of people who previously had signed onto Obama's agenda.

Here is a blog entry by Richard Haass that is a signal that people who formally approved of Obama's strategy for foreign diplomacy are now rethinking it:

Here is an excerpts showing his change of opinion:
Diplomacy and negotiations are seen not as favors to bestow but as tools to employ. The other options—using military force against Iranian nuclear facilities or living with an Iranian nuclear bomb—were judged to be tremendously unattractive. And if diplomacy failed, Obama reasoned, it would be easier to build domestic and international support for more robust sanctions. At the time, I agreed with him."
"I've changed my mind. The nuclear talks are going nowhere. The Iranians appear intent on developing the means to produce a nuclear weapon; there is no other explanation for the secret uranium-enrichment facility discovered near the holy city of Qum. Fortunately, their nuclear program appears to have hit some technical snags, which puts off the need to decide whether to launch a preventive strike. Instead we should be focusing on another fact: Iran may be closer to profound political change than at any time since the revolution that ousted the shah 30 years ago.
I have not thoroughly thought through Richard Haass' new opinion of the U.S.'s approach to Iran, but I do find it telling that he has made a very significant shift. I wonder how many others will follow?

Friday, January 22, 2010


I love this; I'm still smiling. It's YouTube video. I bet it'll be well circulated. Take the time. It's worth it.


I did not watch the entire speech that Obama gave at an Ohio Town Hall, today, but I did see a snippet and one declaration really caught my attention. He said,
"Because of all of the things we've done, the the worst of the economic disaster is over."
I interpreted this statement as declaring his policies as success. The sacrifice did its job. He has declared that his policies have rescued the economy from its free fall and things will only get better now. I think it is a "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" moment. If Obama is right, he'll bounce back a bit. If he's wrong, get ready for another free fall.


I'm trying to understand more fully about what this latest Supreme Court decision means. It's another case of the same facts leading to completely diametrical conclusions:
From the NY Times:
"With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century. Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court’s conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding. Congress must act immediately to limit the damage of this radical decision, which strikes at the heart of democracy."
But, then from "":
"The Supreme Court today issued a decision (pdf) that may, in the long run, be an even bigger victory for individual freedom and defeat for government power than Scott Brown's victory in the Massachusetts U.S. Senate election."
I'll have to keep reading to understand this more fully. Comments would be appreciated.


I am truly confused by the following issue:

It regards a Supreme Court decision about the constitutionality of blocking the film documentary, "Hillary" from being viewed, b/c of its political nature, and its corporate backers....or something like that.

They decided that it is obstructing free speech to block a film like that. That makes sense, but then, the above NY Times article speaks of how this decision allows for corporations, lobbyists, and unions to spend as much as they want to on a campaign. The fear being, of course, that the little guy's $10 donation gets severely dwarfed by the millions that a Corporation could contribute to a candidate. (or the unions' power to influence elections, who have less money than a corporation, would be dwarfed as well).

Regardless of how you come down on the court's decision, I'm not certain about how these two conclusions have to be related and congruent. Is this an incidence of unintended consequences, i.e., protecting free speech in the media, regardless of its backers, but at the same time unintentionally giving more power back to Wallstreet and Unions in influencing elections by contributing to campaigns?

I'm just confused on the implications of this decision.


GALLUP: In U.S., Majority Favors Suspending Work on Healthcare Bill.

The above article shows that 39% of Americans think that Congress should continue and try to push through the bill they have. Whereas 55% of Americans think they should suspend work on this bill and consider alternatives.

From what I've heard on the news, my sense is that the Obama Administration is inclined toward continuing to push it through. It's hard to understand their logic but, there seems to be a core number of people - around 39% - that continue to like this legislation.

He can't afford to lose his devotees. He' already lost a bunch of them, b/c he's backed off some of his most radical promises such as gay marriage, closing Gitmo by the end of the year, public option in health care, and bringing the troops home. He's never going to convince the Right or even the Center-Right that he's got what it takes to re-elect him in 2012, but if he loses his entire base, he's a goner. His campaign support for Democrat Congress members and governors in trouble in elections has proved to be unfruitful anyways. Therefore, he can throw them under the bus and push through whatever he can during this limited tenure. After all, he thinks he still has the typical SEIU, and ACORN types to strong arm for him, and control of his message in the MSM. But, he's out of touch there, too, b/c even those ranks are weakening.

So, I predict he pushes harder than ever, trying to please his most radical followers, who truly are in line with his objectives. He'll have to throw a bone or two to the other dems, who are waking up, and even some republican's now that Scott Brown is in there, but he's not going to back off and move to the center like Clinton did.

The best news is that he doesn't have the support of the majority anymore, and in America, the majority does have the voice...eventually. With 2010 elections not far off, he's not going to have the full support of the democratic caucus anymore, now that they've seen how unhappy the majority of the electorate is with their policies. Apparently what they'd been fed about the opposition being dummy tea baggers on the radical fringe has come to light as the garbage that was.

Thursday, January 21, 2010


From Instapundit: DOESN’T HAVE THE VOTES: Pelosi announces that she can’t pass Senate ObamaCare bill. “Brown’s arrival in the capital today carried a message that Democrats finally began to comprehend, after dismissing voter anger at town halls for months as meaningless.”
From that link..
"This puts an end to the complicated pass-this-now, do-a-modification-later approach that had been floated over the past week as it became apparent that Democrats would lose Massachusetts. It also probably means an end to the reconciliation approach, which could only be used to pass the least popular elements of ObamaCare — Medicare cuts and tax hikes. We’re probably looking more at a Square One approach, and this time the Obama administration may try to draft key Republicans into the talks in order to get bipartisan cover." (my emphasis)
I call that a huge victory for the American People. We all can see that some type of pragmatic, common sense, health reform is needed, but not in the form of Obamacare. Starting at square one is the right thing to do. And, with Scott Brown in the room, puts some of the Republican ideas back on the table.


It's always amusing when a politician is so out of touch with their state. Following is a statement from the Chairman of the California Democrat Party, John Burton, asserting that California won't follow the same follies as the Coakely campaign did:
"Nobody in California that is running for office would take off for a weeklong vacation before the general election after a tough primary, and they probably would be standing out in front of Dodger Stadium or Candlestick Park shaking hands," he said, alluding to one of Coakley's widely cited gaffes involving the Boston Red Sox baseball team.

Candlestick Park? I hope no one is standing in front of Candlestick Park, b/c there wouldn't be any hands to shake. There hasn't been since 2000 when the Giants moved to PacBell Park, which is now called AT&T Park. And, funnier is that he said this "alluding to one of Coakley's widely cited gaffes involving the Boston Red Sox baseball team."

Yes, out of touch. And, that's just a campaign gaffe. The discontent with the ruling party and its agenda doesn't enter his mind as a problem that California might have. Again, out of touch.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010


It was very exciting to see the turn of events that led to the election of Scott Brown yesterday in Massachusetts. There is a sense that people are starting to see the writing on the wall, in terms of the left progressive's agenda and they don't like it. The scales are coming off, in terms of the idolatry of Obama. Perspective and balance have a chance, again. The independents are still looking for the hope and change they thought they'd get in an Obama administration.

I think the movement propelled by the Tea Party Express provides the best chances for the change in Washington that so many are looking for. The main sentiment is "less government" and "reduce spending" and "keep us safe." That is appealing to all centrists - left or right leaning.

On the other hand.....there are two diametrically opposed points of view in our country in regards to what constitutes, "going in the right direction." They seem irreconcilable.

What prompted me to think about this today was an article by Nile Gardner, from Telegraph Blogs.

It's title is:
"10 Reasons Who George W. Bush Was a Smarter World Leader Than Barack Obama."

I read the article and agreed with all of the points. How refreshing it was to have someone lay it out like that in bullet point form.
The part that floors me is in the comments section. This article really hits a nerve. It has generated over 175 comments so far. People just see black and white and one's black is the other's white. (and I'm not talking about race!)
It's one thing to disregard the blogger's points, but the way those with opposing views spin the same facts and turn them upside down never ceases to amaze me. I know they think the same of my point of view. The points of view are irreconcilable. There is no overlap for about 25% on the left and 25% on the right. It seems to me that there are points of gray for about half of the electorate.

The message to Washington yesterday was the rejection of a one party government by the centrists/independents in the electorate. There is a pit in everyone's stomach when they read the anger from one faction to the other. There is a complete disconnect. The center that extends both left and right, just wants everyone to get along. Use common sense and the Constitution and fix our problems. It seems so simple. It's the interest groups, lobbyists, and unions that pull the strings that makes it complicated.

That's why the time immediately after 9/11/01, while sad and scary, was also wonderful. There was a unity in America that we hadn't felt in a long time and haven't seen since. A common enemy brings unity. Then, it was Al Quieda. Now that has been muddled and the common enemy on the left is the right and the common enemy on the right is the left. I hope that the revolution, using peaceful protest and the ballot box, (vs. bullets or bullying), coming to pass through the silent majority who has always just wanted everyone to get along and for government to get the job using common sense solutions and sticking to the principals in the Constitution, will bring us together by our common heritage, instead of our country coming together because of materialized threats from terrorists.


Can you imagine this? How Did School Staffers Get Insulin Instead of Flu Vaccine?

When staff members at a Wellesley, Mass., school went to the nurse last Friday, they expected to be injected with a vaccine for the H1N1 flu. What they received instead was a shot of insulin resulting in a bout with low blood sugar.

I wonder if this happened before or after school? I hope after, b/c teaching with low blood sugar sure is a disadvantage in a classroom where the kids are likely functioning with high blood sugar!

This is a potentially very serious mistake, depending on the person it's given to such as someone with hypoglycemia. Will there be accountability and law suits for this, like there would be if it were a private administration of the wrong vaccine? If so, the CBO needs to account for those costs when determining the cost of Obamacare. If not, the hypocrisy would be unbearable.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010


As I mentioned in one of my first (if not the first) post was how frustrated I've been at how the powers in Washington ignored and dismissed the Tea Party movement. I also am hopeful and excited about the implications of the Brown vs. Coakley election today.

I'm not alone. Those two concepts are completely intertwined. The dismissal of the Tea Party movement invigorated them and those sympathetic with their gripes and concern, and eventually, gave the movement more legitimacy than ever, as others not necessarily completely in sync with the Tea Party type's concerns became distressed by the Democrats shoving BIG stuff down our throats w/o paying attention the the opinions of the majority of the American people.

The tone-deafness and lack of bi-partisanship of their representatives have made the independents and even some democrats mad. No matter what the pundits and politicians say, most Americans know that the freedom of speech, including dissent, is healthy for democracy, and applies equally to all citizens, not just Dems. This Massachusetts race is finally waking some of the reps up.

"This is real," he [Newsom] said. "At our own peril, we dismiss these tea parties as ... some sort of isolated extremism. ... It's not."

Read more:

Others, not so much.

She [Pelosi] insisted that - whatever the outcome - the results today will in no way represent a repudiation of the Obama administration, especially on the matter of health care reform.

Read more:

Still, others, want to remain confident, but can't help admitting concern.

"What happens in Massachusetts in January doesn't predict what is going to happen in California in November," said Boxer campaign manager Rose Kapolczynski. "We're taking nothing for granted."

Read more:

Democracy at work. I love it.


I was reading an article linked by instapundit regarding the early heavy turn out for the Massachusetts special election.

One sentence caught my eye that I really identified with.

The last time that Massachusetts elected a Republican to the Senate, I was in eighth grade. I’m now 50.

I’ve been voting in here since 1982. This is the first time that my actually counted for anything. I’d like to get used to that feeling.

The democrats have a pretty strong hold here in California. When I vote for the Congressmen man Congresswomen choices, I vote, but I don't really feel like it counts, b/c I know the opposition will win.

Sorry if the format in my blogs are inconsistent. I'm still learning. : )


There is no doubt that the earthquake in Haiti has been a disaster beyond anything we've seen in this hemisphere in forever (my lifetime, anyways). It is painful to watch so many people suffering both physically and emotionally, as they deal with the primitive conditions, destruction, lack of food, water, and shelter, injuries, and most of all dealing with the loss of life, which affects not only the heartbreak of loss of family and community members, but also the stench that reminds them of it every moment. It's especially heartbreaking to see all of the kids who have been orphaned by this devastating tragedy.

Thanks be to God, that there are always good things to point to in the midst of suffering. One thing I saw this morning that warmed my heart was the amazing impact this event is going to have on every kid in one of the orphanages (they all survived), run by two sisters from Pittsburgh. They used facebook and twitter to contact friends and supporters in Pittsburgh. Those friends contacted the governor of Pittsburgh, who flew to Haiti and helped to cut through the red tape to get them the care they need. They are now at the Children's Hospital in Pittsburgh, being very well taken care of. They will stay in group homes in America, and will be adopted by U.S.A. families. As despairing as the greater tragedy in Haiti is, this event will save these 24 children and give them a life they never would have had.

There are other displays of the best of humanity amidst the suffering as well. God's arms are surrounding so many through the arms of the amazing faithful servants who answered the call to "go," even before this tragedy. Many others are sending their support in other ways, such as monetary donations that are allowing those there to not only extend their love, but also have the things they need to help them. We can continue to pray that those supplies will get into the hands that need them so desperately.

Monday, January 18, 2010


SARAH DURAND: Democrats’ Plan for Election 2010: Cheat.

I have feared this concept every since I've seen the democrat's desperation in the Massachusetts race for the Senate.

It makes me want to cry to consider this being something to be concerned about.


It's MLK day. I have read the "I Have a Dream" speech more than once. It's a stirring, memorable, and historic speech. But I just read something that was even more stirring and more real. Take the time to read it. It's a very good reflection of what he was fighting for and gives you a sense of thanksgiving that he did what he did and why he is celebrated.


Admittedly, I get frustrated at the way so many hang onto the sense of victimization that occurs in America today as well as the reverse racism that has emerged. I get frustrated because I feel that MLK's dream has come to pass. Let's relish in that, instead of finding more ways to bicker and point fingers and blame. Times have changed and this generation has no clue about how the atrocious mistreatment of the the African American population could even have happened. Racism is foreign to them. They read about it, but they don't understand it. Praise God for that.

The constant reference and accusations of racism only delays the complete healing of this country in terms of equality for all and judging people by the content of one's character instead of the color of their skin. My generation sees the hope and promise of the future in a color blind society. For our children, it's not a hope, but a reality, if only everyone would embrace that fact. In America today, the color of your skin does not limit your possibilities!

There are the remnants of racism in the older community and it is exploited in politics. That keeps the poisonous flame of racism from being completely extinguished in America. I think it's important to remember the past so that mistakes and oppression are not repeated, but teach it as history, and not the current state of affairs.

We must learn the lessons from history so that we can learn from its triumphs as well as its travesties. That is as true for our world today as it always has been.

That is why celebrating the triumphs, acknowledged in a national holiday or classroom, that occurred in history, such as the life and ministry of Martin Luther King, President's Day (thinking especially of our founding fathers and presidents that made a positive impact on our country and world), Independence Day, Memorial Day, and the like is so important and valuable.

Equally important is remembering the shame and horror of some of history's worst moments. From the violent religious battles such as the Crusades, the Holocaust and today's radical Islamic Jihad, to societal oppression such as in slavery, caste systems, communism, facism, and the like.

There is good and evil in this life. May we always be able to tell the difference and strive for the former. By the grace of God, we can, if only we accept it. May light shine on the darkness and root out the evil in our world.


The above YouTube Video presented in the above link is actually pretty humorous. The crowd really got raucous when a heckler(s) loudly made some disapproval known. Obama couldn't control the crowd. I think it took him a couple of minutes to regain people's attention. He looked like a teacher who needed a whistle or something to get the class' attention back.

One of his remarks referred to the other campaign as demonizing the opposition. Yes, he knows all about that!

This clip didn't show the whole speech, but the 5 minutes it does show, while not impressive, was kinda funny to see such a practiced and hailed speech giver really struggle to regain the attention of the crowd, raising his hand in frustration and saying to his supporters, "it's okay. it's okay. Now, where were we?"

Of course, he couldn't resist blaming the last administration for the country's misery's, but at least this time it was more subtle than usual. He referred to the past 10 years of trouble rather the past 8 (of course, now it'd be 9 with his year). But, he's right about looking prior to the last administration. It was during the Clinton administration when the rules for lending loosened so much (too much) to let people into the real estate market who really couldn't afford it. It was a nice ride, while it lasted. Unfortunately, we weren't even allowed to relish and accept the bounty because the dems were constantly complaining about the state of the economy, even then, when unemployment was at all time lows. But, I didn't hear them complaining about the irresponsible lending at the time. That, at least would have given some of their complaining legitimacy and understanding of the markets. Instead, it was blatant politics. And ugly at that. They don't want us to be happy and content. They need us to need them.

Saturday, January 16, 2010


I was just reading the following link from a link in instapundit:

Sentences to ponder, Haiti edition

“Money is worth nothing right now; water is the currency,” one foreign aid worker told Reuters.

The story is here.

I have to say that after some skepticism, I think President Obama has handled the Haiti disaster well. At first, I thought he was taking on too great a role. I think that stems from the fact that he seemed to care more about Haiti than America, especially in light of the near miss terror scare. But, as I read the accounts, I think it was a good decision to act quickly and decisively in getting as much aid and resources to Haiti ASAP. It is a disaster beyond comprehension. The death and destruction in its wake is far more extreme than any terror attack would be. And, the threat of a huge natural disaster like that looms for everyone in this world, at least as much as a terrorist attack does.

Reaching out to the world in this type of compassionate way is very good. It's the outstretched hand that makes American stand out and be a true leader for good will in the world. Reaching his open hand out to dictators w/o precondition and the bowing and so forth is not being a good leader to spread good will in this ever shrinking world.

As far as natural disasters go, preparation and reaction is the best you can do. In a terrorist filled world, along with preparing for the worst, there are more proactive things you can do to prevent such a tragedy from happening.

I guess that's what I want to see from our president. Kudos for the way he is outstretching America's hand in offering aide to a neighbor in time of great need. Please, Mr. President, care about Americans as much.

As I reread this post, I realized that in the first sentence I was able to address Obama as "President Obama". Usually, I am unable to do that. I say "Obama" or "the president" or "the administration" or "the White House". In this case, he acted presidential. This is the type of compassion that America is known for. Bowing down to dictators who present a clear and present danger to America is not.

Friday, January 15, 2010


From Instapundit:

I don't know what Obama is thinking. Has his hubris no bounds? This is the clearest evidence that he is truly in full denial of his sinking popularity. Does he not get that the reason Scott Brown is a real threat to the once-thought-democrat-owned Massachusetts seat is that more and more left of center folks are unhappy with the health care bill, and that if electing Brown is the only way to keep them from ramming it down our throats, then so be it.

Bringing Obama out to campaign will not help; in fact, I have read that favorable polling for Coakley has sunk after Obama gets drawn into the race. 35% of Massachusetts residents favor Obamacare. 55% favor Obama. This race isn't about Obama, per sey, it's about health care. No matter how badly he casts Brown in his appearance on Sunday, the people know that a vote for Coakley is a vote for Obamacare, and they don't want it.

Having Obama come to help out Coakley is a very unwise political move. The risks totally outweigh the gain. The only way he can justify going is that he is still convinced that his very presence and endorsement can sway them. When she loses, it will reflect poorly both on him and his agenda. They will no longer be able to blame the loss on Coakley. The argument that it's a referendum on their leadership is that much more solid. Even if Brown loses, but the polls don't really change, his presence will prove to be powerless. He's got a problem if Democrats think that being completely loyal to Obama will not help them in an election, and that their association with Obamacare could actually hurt.

There better be a lot of monitoring of the election. There is precedent for fraud by ACORN and Pink Panthers. I don't put it past them to use desperate measures to keep Coakley from losing.


I finally feel like things might be turning around and the hope I have had for the American people to rise up and make democracy work is starting to materialize in a way that I can almost see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Some of the light I'm seeing comes in the form of seeing Scott Brown way ahead in the polls. He's been pulling ahead at lightening speed this week, even pulling many democrats into his corner. At some point the congressmen in power have to recognize that they are not doing the will of the people.

Many dems, including the White House are blaming Coakley for just running a very poor campaign. That says a lot about the nature of politics. It's the campaign an the promises that come with it vs. the evidence of execution of the will of the people that matters in winning elections.

It was a blog entry at

that alerted me to this sentimentality:
Deeds ran such a lackluster campaign, Democrats say, that his defeat could be solely attributed to his own shortcomings, and should not be seen as a referendum on President Obama's policies or those of the national Democratic party.

The same sort of thinking is emerging in Massachusetts. "This is a Creigh Deeds situation," the Democrat says. "
I don't think it says that the Obama agenda is a problem. I think it says, 1) that she's a terrible candidate, 2) that she ran a terrible campaign, 3) that the climate is difficult but she should have been able to overcome it, and 4) that Democrats beware -- you better run good campaigns, or you're going to lose."

How long will they be so tone deaf and in such denial? Every time they blame people's discontent with the people in power on "the climate is difficult" or "look what we inherited" I just see cowardice. I say to them: You were elected because you convinced people that you could do better and solve the country's problems. You said you were up to the task. You've had a year to prove yourself. That's half of a House Representative's term! They have not instilled any real confidence in the American people that they will or are able to solve the issues causing the "difficult climate." Americans are looking to an alternative that might do better, because it appears that they couldn't do worse.

They should see Brown's rise as a referendum on their ultra liberal agenda, but instead they continue to try and deflect the push back to some scapegoat. Until they take responsibility for themselves, people will continue to see them as weak and incapable of real leadership who will listen to the electorate that they supposedly represent.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010


In the above blog entry linked by instapundit, the blogger is reporting that Newt Gingrich, when asked who are the front runners for 2012, declared himself viable for being a candidate for president. The writer is not impressed with his self declaration.

At the end he says that Huckabee could be crossed off of his list too.

My observation is that both Gingrich and Huckabee make regular appearances on Fox News (Huckabee has his own show). Is that their ruin? One wouldn't think so, but maybe. Over exposure?

Sarah Palin is entering that circuit, too, as a Fox News contributor (ie. pundit). She's been making the rounds on Fox News shows this week, with hour long interviews w/ O'Reily, and today it was Glen Beck. She probably was on Hannity, too.

I do like her, and I think her approval rating will surpass Obama's for awhile, i.e., hers will go up as his is going down, but I'm not sure she's the right candidate for 2012. She is good for the party right now though, and a voice for people in the Tea Parties, as well as other disenchanted folks. I think continuing to be a voice is the best position for her. She can articulate things (despite her reputation for the opposite), she's nice to look at and listen to, and her values resemble those of the disenchanted with the system as it is. She also can raise a lot of money at speaking events. Her demeanor, thoughts, frustrations, and ideals are refreshing to me. Running for and/or being president could spoil that. Who comes out of the presidency as respectable as when they went in? Also, not running shows that her interest in politics is true reform and not power.

Some think she would jump ship from the GOP and go with being independent or some 3rd party. Her position during her interview with Beck today was that she's considered it, but has decided to remain a Republican. She says that the Republican's planks (that's what she called them) are good; they've just drifted from that. The old timers that have forgotten what values put them there need to be fired, and replaced by people who share the more conservative values being called for right now by the disenchanted (my word), whose numbers are growing all the time. I think she's smart enough to know that a 3rd party would only increase the dem's chance of keeping the power.

Right now I trust her. That's hard to find right now. Maybe that's why I don't want her to run for president. Too much garbage goes with it, and it's hard to not let some of the stink stick to you. She is a great spokesperson and can prop someone up big time.