The Hypocrisy Of It All

Ron Fournier wrote an interesting piece in the National Journal wondering if we're seeing the beginning of the end of Washington as we know it. His thought is that the Millennials will get to the point that I have; they'll be so disgusted with government as it is they'll take the bull by the horns and change it.

The Millennials and a whole lot of we old timers feel much the same way.  We've gone from dysfunctional to non-functional and everyone shares a piece of the blame. Take Michele Bachmann telling Greta last night that Congress deserves the subsidies! And I read today where John Boehner spent weeks trying to cook up language with Harry Reid to make them possible without drawing much attention. Fortunately for Boehner the President took care of it for him.  What hypocrites!

So what do we have here?  Five parties, maybe six?  On the Democratic side we have the progressives and the moderates, such as they are.  On the Republican side we have the conservatives, the tea party conservatives, the social conservatives and the moderates, such as they are.

Throw into the mix the independents that tend to be a combination of the parts with a dash of Libertarian thrown in for the heck of it.

So there is no cohesive group in either party.  Plus, they've all become little more than self righteous name callers no matter how much they try to tell us its all for us.

What's needed is an outsider and that just may be the old thorn in the side, Chris Christy.  He has his own ideas on how to fix the disconnect in Washington.  If it sounds familiar it's because it's how it used to work and how it's supposed to work. He'd call leadership into a room and not let them out until the problem was solved - with him leading the discussion.  Not dictating; leading.

He also suggested he'd make off limits the places congressional members rush to after confrontations to lambaste one another.  No media until a real meeting has been held producing real results.  That would be a shock to all sides and a refreshing change for those of us who listen to them.

I hope the Millennials do get angry enough to motivate themselves.  Even though Christie is a bit older, maybe his approach would be one they'd like.  To them it may seem to be reinventing government.  To those of my generation it may seem more like returning to our roots.  I can live with either.

What I can't live with is what we have now.

Palin's Fadin' While Bachmann's Rockin'

The Iowa Straw Poll 2011 is history.  I find it amusing and annoying at the same time.  Amusing that the media pays so much attention to what is fund raiser for the Iowa Republican Party and annoying they put so much truck into a circus that has Bachmann the winner by 200 +/- votes over Ron Paul who I feel has no chance to win the nomination.  What is, however, is what is.

I will admit that I have to go to Bachmann's web site to see if she has begun articulating how she is going to achieve all of about which she rants.  Especially if the House and Senate go Democratic or at least the balance goes against her.  That seems to be the question always left out.  How?  And too, she isn't alone.  No one is asked and no one volunteers.  Except Herman Cain, but this isn't about him.

That aside, Sarah Palin is still skulking around the sidelines seeking attention.  It is neither the time nor the place for a tease, but then that's Palin.  I thought it time to compare these two women just in case of a worst case scenario!

I watched Bachmann with Chris Wallace this morning and saw an attractive, articulate candidate, one who dresses and conducts herself  in a professional manner.  No cutesy poo expressions, no wink wink.

I haven't seen much substance from either.  As I said, I need to do my homework on Bachmann.  Palin has hijacked the limelight since McCain lost in 2008 and I've seen no growth in substance other than being able to ad lib from pre-received talking points when swapping intellectualisms with Sean Hannity.

Bachmann is out there on the front lines.  Fielding the jabs, espousing her stands and doing rather well at it.  Palin?  She seems to drop in like an uninvited guest.  If she enters the race I do believe she'll do it to deny Bachmann, but if so she may have underestimated how tired people have become of her.  She's been replaced by a Congresswoman who actually has a record even if not sterling and a real Governor, Rick Perry, who would, I expect, make mince meat of her in a debate.

Whether or not I change my opinion of Michele Bachmann remains to be seen.  However, if I had to choose between these two women there is no contest.  Bachmann seems to genuinely care about the country.  Palin seems to genuinely care about herself. Rock on Michele!

Politicians And That Pesky Old Religion

Michele Bachmann is a headache!  Maybe even a migraine.  She certainly creates, in me, as per possible side effects of a migraine,  a degree of nausea and (a) disturbed vision!

Now, it seems she has left her church.  She is ~ was ~ Lutheran. After having belonged to the church for at least ten years even if she hasn't attended, in favor of another, for the last two.  It seems, after all those years, she finds herself questioning the Lutherans stand on the Pope and the Catholic view of how one attains salvation.

I left the church when I was in college for a number of reasons, not the least being witness to this doctrine being preached from the pulpit to numerous in the congregation from other countries and religions. I thought it showed an insensitivity to those exploring various religions, including Catholicism.  And, personally, I never bought into the idea that an old man chosen by a group of his peers is truly God's representative on earth and the only way to salvation is through the Catholic church.  I am also not Lutheran.

This, however, is beside the point.  Did Ms. Bachmann not know what Lutheran doctrine was when she joined the church?  Or is she just another politician saying, "Oops."   Can't offend another religion by dissing the Pope.  I wonder if her actions will really bring her more  Catholic votes than if she had said and done nothing.  And can that vote win her the election?

It's Friday, so I'm going to let my snarky side out.  I'm wondering if her husband suggested she leave her church, or if God told her to leave her church, maybe through her husband, or what?  If He instructed her as to who she should marry and what education she should pursue, certainly He had some say about this!

Is this not a good reason to leave religion out of politics?  What it shows to me is someone so insecure about how they 'believe' they'll flee at the first sign of controversy.  Come on.  A politician can't be all things to all people.  They need to understand that and so should the rest of us.  Leaving one's church isn't the best way to show you have convictions and are willing to stand by them!

On that note, Jon Huntsman is beginning to look interesting.  That he is a Mormon is of no matter to me.  In fact,  I've read that it's becoming cool to be Mormon since 'The Book of Mormon' opened on Broadway.  What does that have to do with politics?  Absolutely nothing.  And that's the point.

Separation Of Church And State On A Different Level

While separation of church and state is on my mind, I've been doing some thinking about how it applies to politicians.   Especially Michele Bachmann.

I'm not about to criticize anyone for having faith and crediting it with who they are and what they've done with their life, but should there be a limit?  Especially with a politician.

Romney and Huntsman have the obstacle of being Mormon, yet neither talks about it.  It certainly isn't the reason either entered politics.

Michele can't stop talking about  her communication with God.  Often through her husband.  In a Financial Times article she tells of having a 'vision' while praying that led her to marry her husband. That God instilled in her heart that if she studied hard he'd take her to law school and instructed her husband to encourage her to get her post doctorate.

"The Lord says, 'Be submissive wives, you ought to be submissive to your husband'. I pursued this course of study," which she had not been interested in.

This line of conversation obviously resonates with some but it makes me uncomfortable. I thought it might have been somewhat misconstrued by the reporters.

Not so. In yesterday's Wall Street Journal , in an article about how her 'tax attorney' claim is a bit misleading, she reiterates that she continued her studies because God was calling her to do so through her husband.

It makes me wonder two things. Is she the one running for President or is it her husband, or for that matter, God? Two, has she ever had an idea of her own and how are we to tell the difference?

With her propensity for gaffes and lack of policy thus far, I don't think she's a viable candidate.  I cannot envision the President of the United States being subservient to anyone,  especially this day and age and especially to a spouse.

It's probably too late for her to win me over.  There is something rather Elmer Gantryish about her,  to a point where I question her sincerity versus effect.  I'd like my candidate to keep his or her faith a little closer to the vest rather than the showcase of the campaign.

It has it's place most certainly, but to wear it like an entitlement is disconcerting to those of us who are looking for political savvy and workable policies rather than an evangelist.